Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jill Mortimer

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 redirect to 2021 Hartlepool by-election. Eddie891 Talk Work 21:55, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jill Mortimer[edit]

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

Jill Mortimer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Election candidate for 2021_Hartlepool_by-election. WP:POLITICIAN is explicitly clear: "Just being an elected local official, or an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability." All coverage is related to that making this a WP:TOOSOON case, which can be recreated if she wins. Valenciano (talk) 20:34, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Valenciano (talk) 20:34, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Seems daft, only to recreate it in a few weeks, but yeah, WP:CRYSTAL and all that. Jdcooper (talk) 20:36, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I did think about that, but not nomming stuff like this is effectively giving people precedent to create articles on candidates in a 5 to 6-week run-up to an election and then arguing that we should just wait till election day and see. Such articles are often promo pieces. This largely avoids that, but there's nothing in it which isn't in the by-election article. Valenciano (talk) 20:43, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete with the stipulation that the page can be freely re-created should she get elected. --The Right 'Orrible (talk) 20:50, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to 2021 Hartlepool by-election so that it can be more easily created if she gets more press coverage. Chessrat (talk, contributions) 20:52, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Would support this idea. Would also help the page not get recreated in the meantime (unlike deletion). Jdcooper (talk) 23:32, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 21:27, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 21:27, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per Chessrat. I considered proposing draftification, but it's enough of a stub that retainable content isn't really an issue. Vaticidalprophet 23:47, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Will set a bad precedent even for by-elections. Kalamikid (talk) 10:41, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to 2021 Hartlepool by-election. It does seem harsh, as all but one of the other candidates are former MPs and have articles, but these are our rules. Farmer and local councillor plus candidate does not add up to notability. Keep the various categories for the redirect. PamD 12:11, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to 2021 Hartlepool by-election, I think it's better if the page is for the meantime directed there- if she doesn't win, no skin off our noses, if she does win, can easily be recreated.BitterGiant (talk) 12:29, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Delete. As someone above said this is not standard practice for by-elections and they should not have an article until elected MP, which probably won’t happen in Hartlepool anyway. P.S. My guess is a Labour win on a very low vote share due to a split vote with the independent ex Labour candidate taking some anti Labour votes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7F:B416:3000:C189:F4D5:14B7:427A (talk) 15:06, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect as per Chessrat. Will remove the risk that the page is turned into a campaign ad in the coming weeks. OGBC1992 (talk) 15:48, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. As usual, people do not get Wikipedia articles just for standing as candidates in elections they have not won — the notability test at WP:NPOL is holding a notable political office, not just running for one, but this does not even try to claim that she has preexisting notability for other reasons that would have gotten her into Wikipedia independently of the candidacy. I'm not convinced that redirecting unsuccessful candidates to the elections they ran in is warranted in most cases — for one thing, they significantly outlast the likelihood that anybody would ever actually be searching for that person anymore, and for another, they can actively interfere with the process of getting an article created if and when a different, more notable Jill Mortimer comes along. So I just don't see a redirect as necessary in such cases. Bearcat (talk) 19:28, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This isn't the first time someone has jumped the gun and created a page for someone they think is the likely winner of a UK by-election, and it wont be the last. It's important we don't allow this to set a precedent. I disagree with calls for a redirect - I think its satisfactory for people searching the name to get a typical list of results, with the by-election likely being the first one. Maswimelleu (talk) 20:00, 29 March 2021 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Jill_Mortimer&oldid=1016008760"