Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zara Kitson (2nd nomination)

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. Sandstein 07:48, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Zara Kitson[edit]

[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)

Clear lack of notability, failing WP:POLITICIAN and WP:GNG. The subject in question has not won a single election.

Furthermore, as noted by other editors in the first nomination, much of the article's text reads like a CV or political endorsement for the politician. The subject of the article has not received significant coverage that would warrant an individual article. RaviC (talk) 11:53, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 12:34, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 12:34, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 12:34, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete lack of notability as an individual and politician. Raymond3023 (talk) 15:13, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This article has only just completed a prolonged period of discussion- it was nominated for deletion and resulted in a no-consensus outcome. The first nomination ran from for more that three weeks: from 31 May until it was closed on 24 June as no-consensus. At that point RaviC added the "advert" improvement template to the article. RaviC did not edit any content within the article, but within a couple of hours had opened a deletion review. Another editor promptly went through the article and made a wide range of changes, that they described as: "removed the promotional wording, added more citations and information, fixed the lede to more accurately describe her notability as written in the body of the article. Made it clear that she's lost all the elections she's run for, because it sort of sounded like she'd won some of them based on the previous wording." The deletion review attracted several responses. On 2 July the no-consensus outcome was endorsed and the deletion review closed. Drchriswilliams (talk) 07:00, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There was also discussion about whether the article should be renominated, due to a poor original nomination and some IP canvassing. SportingFlyer talk 08:54, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This biography has been rewritten since the previous discussion. Kitson was a prominent activist during the Scottish independence referendum, 2014 and has also been prominent campaigning on LGBT issues. She has stood for various elections and been unsuccessful in these but her notability is as an activist, rather than a politician, for example Telegraph article, YWCA feature. In 2015 she ran for the female co-convener position in the Green party (against the incumbent Maggie Chapman), this was a significant challenge- the type of contest not seen before in this party. There is coverage of these various activities in articles across several newspapers and the article on Kitson is well-referenced. These reliable sources are independent of Kitson and of the Greens. She is therefore notable when judged against WP:BASIC. Drchriswilliams (talk) 07:11, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Available references and results fail to establish any notability. Fails WP:GOLDENRULE. Accesscrawl (talk) 08:29, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete She's not an elected politician so fails WP:NPOL but can still have an article if she passes WP:GNG. As I noted in the previous AfD, the article has a lot of sources which mention her, but there's only one source that's directly about her: [1] Everything else is trivial coverage of a leadership challenge for a minor political party. SportingFlyer talk 08:53, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 14:38, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 14:38, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 14:38, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep passes WP:BASIC. Passage of WP:GNG is somewhat tenuous but there is sufficient coverage to err on the side of keeping the article.--TM 17:32, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG and appears to be non-notable politician. My Lord (talk) 11:20, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:36, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per above listed reasons. Also, being an LGBT advocate does not help make one more notable. Handoto (talk) 23:07, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails NPOLITICIAN. The way we measure being "prominent" in Scottish independence or LGBT politics is if a subject gets significant coverage in reliable sources due to her activities in the same. If there isn't any, then she just isn't that prominent. (And that being said, opening a new AfD is an appropriate reaction to a no-consensus close.) Nha Trang ^Allons! 17:37, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
DeleteNot notable (enough). The article has been here 3 years and still virtually nothing worth mentioning has emerged Lyndaship (talk) 18:35, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:POLITICIAN and WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 09:46, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Pretty clear failure of the Unelected Politician high bar. Whether we should be blocking politicians like we do is debatable, but consensus to date is clear. Carrite (talk) 02:02, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete political activist and unelected candidate, fails POLITICIAN fails WP:SIGCOV.

at the very least it is WP:TOOSOON.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:59, 22 July 2018 (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.