Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Christine Jennings (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 keep. (non-admin closure) czar · · 05:59, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Christine Jennings[edit]

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

She's not notable. Jerzeykydd (talk) 02:07, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Sir Rcsprinter, Bt (Gimme a message) @ 08:43, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Sir Rcsprinter, Bt (barney) @ 08:43, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Sir Rcsprinter, Bt (converse) @ 08:44, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. The prior AfD in 2004 decided to keep and I can't see what has changed since then that the article should now be deleted. She fails WP:POLITICIAN having narrowly lost election, but the coverage of events then and her other activities seems to me sufficient under WP:GNG. Bondegezou (talk) 08:55, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Sources in the article appear to be enough to satisfy WP:GNG. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lawrencekhoo (talk • contribs) 10:59, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or relink. So big deal if some reliable articles mention her? Let's use some common sense here: not everyone can have a wikipedia page. This woman lost three elections by a landslide. She is not a notable person by any means.--Jerzeykydd (talk) 16:15, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Actually, Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia, so there is no limit on how many articles we can make on people. If there is significant coverage about any topic, then we should have an article about that topic. Michaelzeng7 (alt) (talk) 18:56, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I notice you are the nominator. You shouldn't make bolded 'delete' !votes. By nominating we automatically assume you want the article deleted. Doing so may make the consensus confusing. I have unbolded your delete !vote for that reason. v/r, Michaelzeng7 (alt) (talk) 19:06, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - as I discussed elsewhere recently, candidates who lose an election, but are otherwise notable can be kept; see Elizabeth Colbert Busch, Sharron Angle and Harry Wilson (businessman), for other examples. Bearian (talk) 20:58, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, WP:POLOUTCOMES and WP:POLITICIANS is clear on what the outcome of non-elected politicians for national office should be, redirect unless the subject is notable outside of the realm of politics. Busch and Wilson should have been redirected per POLOUTCOMES as the individuals have not received significant coverage outside of the election, Angle passes POLITICIANS as a member of a sub-national assembly.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 10:46, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- WP:POLOUTCOMES and WP:POLITICIANS is not clear on what the outcome of non-elected politicians for national office should be -- it only says that losing candidates for a national office are "are not viewed as having inherent notability and are often deleted or merged". In this case, she was a major party candidate nominee for Congress twice, and once in a disputed election that took the US House to resolve (sparking articles nationwide, see, e.g., www.nytimes.com/2006/11/26/opinion/26sun2.html; As for a comment above ("This woman lost three elections by a landslide.") that's just untrue (unless you count getting 49.92% of the vote "losing by a landslide") Sholom (talk) 13:22, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Florida's 13th congressional district#Election Results. Subject has received significant coverage from multiple reliable sources, however all the coverage has been due to the subject being a non-elected candidate in political campaigns. The subject passes WP:GNG, but fails WP:POLITICIANS; per WP:POLOUTCOMES non-elected candidates (unless notable outside of the realm of politics), who have not held an elected position outlined in POLITICIANS, are redirected to the article regarding the election(s). As the subject of this AfD has ran for only Florida's 13th congressional district, a redirect to the election results would be appropriate.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 10:46, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment WP:POLOUTCOMES is an essay only. WP:POLITICIAN says, "Just being [...] an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability, although such people can still be notable if they meet the primary notability criterion of "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject of the article". Does that not apply here? Bondegezou (talk) 22:12, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment My sense is that unelected candidates are able to overcome WP:BLP1E if they are notable for reasons unrelated to their candidacy. However, while I generally agree with a redirect as proposed by RightCowLeftCoast for candidates to a national office, or for subnational offices elected by the entire jurisdiction (e.g. Governors), redirects do not work well when candidates run (and lose) for multiple offices or multiple times. Since we can only redirect to one page, or one election, these losing candidates fall into this grey area, where WP:POLOUTCOMES recommends a redirect, not outright deletion, yet the subject would not ordinarily be kept under WP:POLITICIANS and there is not one perfect page for a redirect. None of the three options are exactly appropriate. Circling back to my first statement, political campaigns are one event and the candidates are participants of that event, thus bringing WP:BLP1E into consideration. Enos733 (talk) 06:57, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment I'm unclear. Are you suggesting a Keep in part based on the fact that Jennings' is notable for (at least) three events (three different campaigns) rather than one event? Sholom (talk) 13:22, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Enos, I agree with you here. Shalom, yes, a reason to keep is because there are three different events, in different districts. She's run several times, and has gotten media attention between campaigns. Bearian (talk) 18:47, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Bondegezou and Bearian. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 22:23, 28 May 2013 (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.