Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Susan Templeman

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  17:55, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Susan Templeman

Susan Templeman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

Unsuccessful election candidate with no other particular claim to noteability. Article created in good faith but contributor unaware that such a person fails to meet noteability. Tons of precedent. This is a straight-forward delete. Timeshift (talk) 01:32, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

• Keep Not a straight-forward delete. Beyond being a repeat candidate, Templeman is actually referred to as the "Macquarie federal Labor spokeswoman" (see here) - that article from an independent source is not related to her candidature. And again in the Hawkesbury Gazette (see here) - in fact in that piece there is a distinction between being the candidate and her new role: "Ms Templeman, who is now Labor spokeswoman for Macquarie".

  This puts Templeman under the notability coverage of WP:POLITICIAN 2. Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage.

  Specifically Susan Templeman has been written about, in depth, independently, in multiple news feature articles, by journalists. She even scores a mention in Bob Carr's Diary of a Foreign Minister (Page 77 for those playing at ≈home). Australian Matt (talk) 08:23, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

  • Having once met Susan Templeman, I think even she would find the claim that she is a "major local political figure" pretty funny. She is absolutely not and that is not "significant press coverage". The Drover's Wife (talk) 13:43, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
    • Also, by "local figures", the guideline means people like mayors and councillors, since we're talking about actual politicians and not just people who run for office. "Significant press coverage" also means "non-local", i.e. not the Blue Mountains Gazette. The others are either "here's some quotes by people who lost houses in the fires, one of whom happened to be a former Labor candidate" or "here's a candidate announcement for a fairly marginal seat", neither of which come close to clearing GNG. Frickeg (talk) 14:07, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
• Keep Agree with Australian Matt. Good enough to pass GNG. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 20:17, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
• Delete. Pretty easy one - the coverage is all related to her candidacy, and is not sufficient for GNG. As for "spokeswoman" being distinct from candidate - please. It's another word for the same thing, and the article draws no distinction whatsoever. Frickeg (talk) 20:41, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 01:37, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

• Delete. No claim to notability beyond her (losing) candidacies here: while it is tragic that she lost her house in a bushfire in the immediate aftermath of her election loss, that does not surpass the bar for an article. As Frickeg said, the other claims to notability are so small as to be nonexistent. I lean hard towards inclusionism on this stuff, but running for parliament and losing doth not notability make. The Drover's Wife (talk) 13:41, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
• Delete Agree with Timeshift, Frickeg and The Drover's Wife. An unsuccessful candidate in a federal election does not meet the notability guidelines. -- Ianblair23 (talk) 08:28, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
• Weak Delete per WP:NOTNOW, but I suggest that the article be userfied in the creator's userspace. If she wins later or becomes a notable "perpetual candidate," then it could be restored.

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.