Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/George Turner (journalist)

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. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 20:33, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

George Turner (journalist)[edit]

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

Other than candidature in the upcoming election, subject of article has little claim to notability - the organisation he works for is largely unknown and does not have a Wikipedia article itself. RaviC (talk) 21:21, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is my first contribution to a talk page, so hopefully I'm doing it right - but I'll disagree here. What's your definition of "largely unknown"? Do you just mean that you haven't heard of it? Otherwise, Turner is primarily notable for his legal battle against Shell. However, in addition, Kate Hoey MP has made him further notable by trying to remove him from a photograph - this is an elected MP performing Photoshop on a rival for political gain. In my opinion, she's nominated him herself for notability! Additional note: Further reading shows that Deryk_Chan has already rejected a deletion request over this from RaviC in the past week. Shakeheartbreak (talk) 13:41, 23 May 2017 (PST)

"Otherwise, Turner is primarily notable for his legal battle against Shell"
--- Please read WP:EVENT
"However, in addition, Kate Hoey MP has made him further notable by trying to remove him from a photograph".
--- This does not qualify him for an article in any way.
"Deryk_Chan has already rejected a deletion request"
--- That was a WP:PROD, please refer to that page to learn more. This is an AfD.
RaviC (talk) 18:57, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

An article is not ineligible for AFD just because a PROD was declined — they're two different processes, with different standards for what qualifies and what doesn't. It is completely possible, in fact, for an article to be an absolute no-brainer delete with no legitimate grounds for keeping, and yet still not eligible for the PROD process per se and thus deletable only at a full AFD. Bearcat (talk) 14:58, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:28, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:28, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:28, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

'Delete. A non-winning candidate for election to political office is not more notable than other non-winning candidates just because a rival purportedly airbrushed him out of a photo — if that incident is even notable enough to warrant mention in Wikipedia at all, then it speaks more to the notability of the airbrusher than the airbrushee. And he's not the subject of the Shell-related coverage; he's merely namechecked in coverage that's fundamentally about the Shell campaign, which is not the same thing. So that's not enough to demonstrate preexisting notability prior to his candidacy for office — note, for example, that the article didn't even exist prior to his candidacy for office, whereas if he qualified for a Wikipedia article on Shell campaign grounds then it would have existed two years ago when the Shell campaign was underway. The place for content about that controversy would be in an article on the building, if one exists, rather than a standalone BLP of him. So no prejudice against recreation on or after June 8 if he wins a seat at Westminster, but nothing present here already gets him an article today. Bearcat (talk) 14:55, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I agree to delete. Little notability. MB190417 (talk) 14:55, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural note: It is correct procedure to take an article to AfD when PROD is declined an anyone still thinks the article should be deleted. --Deryck C. 16:53, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

But as the editor who declined the PROD, I guess you'd expect me to argue to keep this article. The article and its cited sources show that George Turner is already known for multiple causes, each attested by independent reliable sources. Therefore he meets WP:NPOL. Deryck C. 16:53, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 08:46, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Several reasons, also affirmed in talk page:

Turner is not notable for his campaign against Shell. This campaign was unsuccessful and merely gained local media attention. As mentioned above, he was not integral to the campaign either.
Turner is not notable for his candidacy in the election. Although his campaign may have attracted local media attention (again), not a single election forecaster predicts that he will take the seat from Hoey. YouGov, one pollster, even suggests he will finish behind the Conservatives in third-place. He is therefore unlikely to win and to be of future notability because of his campaign.
Even despite the above point, the local media attention has been directed towards the Liberal Democrat campaign, not Turner himself. So even if we concede that the campaign is notable, it does not mean his candidacy deserves its own Wikipedia page. It would be more appropriate to reference the campaign in passing on the Vauxhall (UK Parliament constituency) page.
Following on from the above, there is little precedence for creating a page for an unsuccessful candidate who is not successful for other reasons. Sarah Olney's page was created on 2 December 2016, after voters had gone to the polls and in the early hours of the morning when it was clear that she had a chance of winning; and Olney arguably had a similar level of media exposure to Turner at this stage of their campaigns too. The entry for Liz Leffman was similarly created only well after her campaign and is also undergoing a notability dispute.
In the long-run, even if Turner's campaign is notable in the local media, it does not warrant a page about Turner because the campaign will not be so notable in the long run to have its own page. The Liberal Democrat campaign is notable; not Turner himself. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and not a news site - the article may well contain even more information about Turner's campaign than local media does. None of it will be notable enough tomorrow for it to go anywhere except in the Vauxhall constituency page under political history.
The article has been edited and edit-warred by users suspected of sockpuppetry. The four users accused of sockpuppetry have collectively created the page and defended it against certain modifications. They have accused me and other editors of being biased in our coverage when we tried to include reactions to Turner's campaign which was negative. They have also repeatedly taken down templates regarding neutrality and POV concerns and have not engaged in discussions on these on the Talk page, instead preferring to edit-war. It is highly likely that the existence of the article, which itself is biased because it gives disproportional importance to the Lib Dem challenge in the seat (I point once again to the pollsters saying Lib Dems won't take the seat), has come about and persevered only through the actions of these four users which may or may not be one single person editing for political purposes in vested interest.

In all, therefore, delete. If Turner wins, recreate the page. But there is no precedent to have a page on a losing candidate that is not notable for reasons other than their candidacy, however much media attention the campaign has garnered. I am all in favour of the essentials of the article being put into the Vauxhall constituency page. Matt 190417 (talk) 19:49, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Conditional Delete: This article doesn't meet notability criteria for the reasons above, but might meet them in two days if he is elected (which would merit a speedy keep in my opinion). I think the decision should be postponed until then to avoid having to recreate the article just hours after deleting it. The content of the page should be reviewed separately in the event of a keep because I am not satisfied that the content stems from a neutral point of view. Maswimelleu (talk) 20:42, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is now the case Matt 190417 (talk) 08:57, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete lack of significant coverage for WP:GNG or WP:BLPNOTE. He unsuccessfully contested the seat of Vauxhall for the Liberal Democrats in the 2017 general election. --Bejnar (talk) 15:43, 10 June 2017 (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.