Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Amelia Hamer

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 moved to Draft:Amelia Hamer, as an alternative to deletion, per request. BD2412 T 15:18, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Amelia Hamer[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)

Only claim to notability is being a candidate for the next Australian federal election. Sources cover her in the context of winning a party selection process. She is not notable by virtue of connection with notable family members. It is long-standing practice that we don't create articles for unelected election candidates. AusLondonder (talk) 19:35, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Politicians, Conservatism, and Australia. AusLondonder (talk) 19:35, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:46, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~: I agree and as is stated in WP:NPOLITICIAN an unelected candidate in an election isn't inherently notable, but when a candidate's article can be supported with sources that establish notability through WP:GNG, then, as stated in NPOLITICIAN, such people can still be notable. In connection with GNG, a range of sources from both within the article already, and from a Google Search show the article's subject meets the GNG criteria. — GMH Melbourne (talk) 00:51, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Nothing in the article demonstrates her notability inside or outside politics.--Grahame (talk) 13:09, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not independently notable outside a political candidacy, and we have a number of reasons to delete those sorts of pages. SportingFlyer T·C 00:07, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable for being a political candidate. Her activities at Oxford University hardly add to notability. Fails WP:BIO and WP:NPOL. LibStar (talk) 00:19, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The subject article seems to be a TOO SOON. She might later gain notability in the future but for now she doesn't seems to be notable or either enough sources to meet WP:GNG.--Meligirl5 (talk) 17:32, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - TOOSOON and WP:POLOUTCOMES. While consensus can change, the longtime and frequent outcomes have been a long standing precedent. Bearian (talk) 14:37, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify: With the likely result being to delete, I request the article be drafted, in case the subject wins the election, in order to retain the edit history thusfar GMH Melbourne (talk) 01:52, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As always, candidates do not get articles just for being candidates — obviously she'll qualify for an article if she wins the seat once the election happens, but she isn't eligible to have one just for being named as a candidate. But the existence of that campaign coverage received in the context of her candidacy does not in and of itself hand a candidate a WP:GNG-based exemption from WP:NPOL — every candidate in every election everywhere can always show some evidence of campaign coverage, so if that were how it worked then every candidate would always get that exemption and NPOL itself would be completely meaningless and unenforceable. So the notability test for an unelected candidate isn't passed on campaign coverage alone, and normally requires that she already passed an inclusion criterion for some other reason besides her candidacy. Bearcat (talk) 20:39, 19 April 2024 (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.