Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vix Lowthion

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. The arguments based on WP:POLOUTCOMES are persuasive, particularly that the campaign coverage is routine and WP:NPOL requires more than that. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:26, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Vix Lowthion

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Contested PROD. Fails WP:NPOL. The article has lots of citations, but they're nearly all passing mentions in articles about local politics in local media. Does not meet WP:GNG of reliable source significant coverage about the individual. See Talk page for discussion. Bondegezou (talk) 13:35, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:36, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:36, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:37, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:37, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Doesn't meet the WP:GNG. There's still a lack of significant coverage. Some of what's used in the page contributes towards significant coverage, but it's not there yet. There may be a lot of routine election coverage coming up, which won't be useful for establishing notability. Ralbegen (talk) 15:29, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Fifthavenuebrands (talk) 13:25, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Question: I recognise that the reasoning above is sensible. I wonder what we should make of Lowthion's three appearances (as Green Party education spokesperson nationally) on the BBC Sunday Politics show? These are substantial appearances on regional TV by the national broadcaster. (The Wikipedia entry for the show says 'Each region follows a similar format, consisting of two political figures, normally MPs or MEPs, appearing for the whole 29 minutes') Alarichall (talk) 22:13, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Appearing on a talk show as a speaker is not a notability freebie at all. She has to be the subject being spoken about by other people, not the person doing the speaking on other subjects, for a source to count toward showing her notability. Bearcat (talk) 14:11, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That's not true. The information she provided in the talk can be used as a primary source only, that is, to prove only simple facts. However, the very fact, that she was asked to attend a talk show at all very much accounts for notability, in particular when the broadcaster is the BBC, European's largest broadcaster. It is far more difficult to get coverage in TV or radio than in a newspaper.

--Matthiaspaul (talk) 12:31, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, without prejudice against recreation after election day if she wins. Neither being a local parish councillor nor being a candidate in a national election the person has not won constitutes a reason why a person gets into Wikipedia: local councils are not an "inherently" notable office at all, and even at the Westminster level a person has to win the election and thereby hold a seat as an MP to get over NPOL #1. But the sourcing here is a mix of WP:ROUTINE local coverage, of a type and volume that every local councillor on every local council can always show, and/or glancing namechecks of her existence in sources that are fundamentally about other subjects besides her, and that's not what we require to consider her notable enough. Obviously this will be recreated very shortly after election day if she wins, but nothing here is already enough to earn her a place in Wikipedia today. Bearcat (talk) 14:11, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: just repeating here (as creator of the article) my rationale for this article from its talk page. I agree that Lowthion doesn't meet the notability criteria for politicians (WP:POLITICIAN). But I do think she meets the general notability criteria. She has received numerous, non-trivial mentions in a range of reliable secondary sources. While the sources most often cited in this article are local news, non-trivial coverage includes national newspapers (in particular The Guardian) and the international Business Insider(which carried a long piece on her). Alarichall (talk) 18:58, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that some evidence of campaign coverage exists does not hand her a GNG-based exemption from having to pass NPOL, because some evidence of campaign coverage always exists for every candidate in every election. Campaign coverage of an unelected candidate only builds up toward a permanent GNG pass if it demonstrates a reason why her candidacy is somehow much more special than everybody else's candidacies, such that even if she loses she'll still be notable ten years from now anyway. Bearcat (talk) 00:06, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Strange argument, no exemption is necessary. There is no need for her having to pass WP:NPOL if WP:GNG is fulfilled already. --Matthiaspaul (talk) 12:31, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WP:GNG is not fulfilled because there is a lack of "significant coverage" of the person. WP:NPOL helps us interpret WP:NOTNEWS and WP:ROUTINE with respect to politicians. You could string together multiple mentions of most local councillors, but we don't create articles for them all. Election coverage is better done through election articles. Actions taken by a council can go on the relevant council page. Bondegezou (talk) 21:35, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Every candidate in every election always gets local campaign coverage during the election — so every candidate could always claim to have passed GNG, and thus be exempted from having to satisfy NPOL, if the existence of local coverage in the election context were all it took to get them over GNG. So by definition, NPOL would be inherently meaningless, because nobody would ever actually have to pass it anymore. So we have an established consensus that the campaign coverage does not automatically translate into a permanent GNG pass — in exactly the same way that a smattering of local coverage for playing their hometown live dive does not in and of itself exempt a band from having to pass NMUSIC, a smattering of local coverage for winning a local poetry contest does not in and of itself exempt a writer from having to pass AUTHOR, a smattering of local coverage for recovering from an injury does not in and of itself exempt a high school athlete from having to pass our notability standards for athletes, and on and so forth. GNG is more than just "media coverage exists" — it also takes into account factors like depth and geographic range and the context of what the person is getting covered for, and most certainly does deprecate some kinds of media coverage as being worth less than other kinds of media coverage. Bearcat (talk) 16:53, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As discussed at Talk, Business Insider is only a maybe at WP:RSP. Bondegezou (talk) 08:03, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. While there could be more (and probably will be more in the future), I see WP:GNG being fulfilled by a reference mix from publishers like BBC, Guardian, Independent, Daily Telegraph, Business Insider, ~~Times~~, etc. over a span of four years already. Adding to her notability, there were also several long talk shows on BBC and at least one article (by Julian Clegg, BBC) prominently featuring her.

It would be great if more of the provided references would give online links so that they could be checked more easily, but this is not a requirement and what I saw IMO already establishes notability per our guidelines.

--Matthiaspaul (talk) 12:31, 17 November 2019 (UTC)https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Matthiaspaul[reply]

The article has no references from The Times. WP:GNG requires significant coverage: ""Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail". Which of the references do you feel addresses the topic of Vix Lowthion directly and in detail? Bondegezou (talk) 13:55, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the correction regarding "Times" != "Times Education Supplement". It does not change the general picture, though. --Matthiaspaul (talk) 14:26, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:POLOUTCOMES. We have not recently kept an article on a party official for a minor party. A few years ago consensus changed not to keep party leaders of the Greens and other such marginal parties, as being too run of the mill. Please correct me if my view is wrong, but she appears to be the leader only on the Isle of Wight, not nationally. There's discussion above that GNG should trump the more specific rules. Bearian (talk) 20:55, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NNADIGOODLUCK (Talk|Contribs) 13:49, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:POLITICIAN. Subject in question has not (yet) been elected to any notable position of government. --RaviC (talk) 23:48, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.