Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sophy Gardner
- 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. copyvio from [1] Secret account 05:17, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
- Sophy Gardner (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)
Too soon - candidates in elections are not notable. She will be if she is elected. Fails WP:SOLDIER as well. No other indication of notability Gbawden (talk) 11:10, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:37, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:37, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:37, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:37, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
- Redirect to Next United Kingdom general election (yes, that's really the name of the article). That is the usual practice at WP:POLITICIAN for a candidate who is otherwise not notable. It preserves the name and the article history, and makes it easy to expand the redirect back into an article if they should win. --MelanieN (talk) 17:41, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
- Keep Numerous sources can be found here suggesting she easily meets the WP:GNG.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 17:43, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
- Delete. Political candidate who served as a mid-ranking officer in the RAF. Where is the notability? -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:57, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
- Sources include this one, this one, this one, plus check this out. Also here and here and here and mention here in the BBC, plus the numerous other articles above.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 15:11, 17 October 2014 (UTC) Also here; plenty of in-depth sources means she easily meets the WP:GNG.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 15:19, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
- Candidacy for election is not a claim of notability that gets a person into an encyclopedia, so media coverage of the candidacy does not contribute to getting the candidate over WP:GNG. The media are legally and ethically required to give coverage to all candidates in any election in their coverage area, so the existence of said coverage falls under WP:ROUTINE — short of an unusual case on the order of the international media firestorm that ate Christine O'Donnell, if you cannot properly source that she was already notable enough for an article before she became a candidate, then she has to win the election to become notable enough and coverage of the candidacy itself cannot boost her notability in the meantime. Further, [2] and [3] are both primary sources that cannot contribute to her notability at all. Update: Should have added [4] as well; that's an article that she wrote herself, making it yet another invalid PRIMARYSOURCE. Bearcat (talk) 01:10, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
- Where is there a Wikipedia guideline that says "Candidacy for election is not a claim of notability that gets a person into an encyclopedia"? And when is a RAF leader "routine"?--Tomwsulcer (talk) 01:23, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
- Where is there a Wikipedia guideline that says "Candidacy for election is not a claim of notability that gets a person into an encyclopedia"? WP:NPOL simply does not permit "unelected candidate" as a claim of notability in and of itself. A person cannot claim notability under NPOL until they win election to a notable office; absent that, you have to be able to source them over some other notability criterion (e.g. as a musician, as a writer, as an athlete, etc.) so that their failure to pass NPOL is irrelevant.
- And when is a RAF leader "routine"? I didn't say that it was — WP:ROUTINE is a property of the coverage, not of the person. Regardless, being in the RAF is not the thing that the sources you offered are covering her for. There's been no demonstration here that she got substantive coverage for the RAF — of all the sources you offered above, the invalid primary sources are the only ones that are covering her specifically in the RAF context. All of the reliable sources are covering her in the context of the candidacy, and are mentioning her past with the RAF only by way of background. Which is not the type of sourcing it takes to confer notability on her time with the RAF in and of itself — RS coverage of her time in the RAF, contemporary to her time in the RAF, is what it would take. Bearcat (talk) 02:17, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
- The rule 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", so the issue of "unelected candidate" is irrelevant -- clearly she meets the WP:GNG.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 21:38, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
- What you have given us are local newspaper articles (yes, they do tend to write about local political candidates), her profile on a business website and a few mentions in articles relating to the RAF. This does not establish notability. It's purely routine coverage. If we accepted this as proof of notability then a large percentage of the population would be notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:22, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
- Don't see how Gloucester is a "local" place when it has a population of 123,000 persons. Serving in the Royal Air Force is a national endeavor which she did with notable distinction; so is running for Parliament. Not sure how the coverage is "routine" since it varies considerably -- it is not the same story running again and again, but rather new and different stories, in-depth, as required by the WP:GNG.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 12:39, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
- "Local" means "not national"! We usually only accept substantial coverage in the national press as proof of notability. She was a wing commander in the RAF, which is a mid-ranking officer and not sufficient for notability (usually we would require her to be at least an air commodore). Being a parliamentary candidate does not mean someone is notable; this is a long-established standard. There are tens of thousands (at least) of political candidates internationally every year. "Routine" coverage means she has only been covered for "routine" things: being an RAF spokesman and a political candidate, for instance. Sorry, but nothing makes her stand out as a person more notable than any other person. If we had articles on everyone who was good at their job, stood for election and was written about because of it in the local press then we just wouldn't be a serious encyclopaedia. There have to be limits. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:49, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
- By your "not national" logic, then, neither all mayors of US cities would not be considered notable, nor US governors, nor presidential candidates who lost, nor candidates for US senate who lost, pretty much the encyclopedia would be limited to persons elected to national office. This is absurd; Wikipedia covers numerous candidates, mayors, members of Parliament (elected and unelected candidates too) because they meet the WP:GNG not because of some rule that only elected national candidates are notable. Or, in the United Kingdom, city mayors would not be notable simply because they were not national politicians, which again clearly does not make sense. Your argument that somehow the existing sources are "routine" is vacuous; routine means repeated regular stuff, nothing about the sources is routine. Rather, seems like you are simply voting delete because you don't like it and making up rules to skirt the GNG.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 16:16, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
- I think you must have either misread or misunderstood. I said routine coverage in local media did not make someone notable. I did not say that one had to hold national office to be notable. Clearly mayors of major cities and state governors hold major offices and are covered in the national media. And unelected candidates for the Senate or Parliament are not notable for that alone, although they may of course be notable for something else. In fact, I am following Wikipedia's long-established standards for notability. It is you who seems to be saying WP:ILIKEIT and pointing to a collection of minor local news stories and official mentions of her doing her job as a mid-ranking officer as proof of her "notability"! You may notice that as yet you are a lone voice here? Why do you think that might be? -- Necrothesp (talk) 20:25, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
- I guess my problem is the whole idea of "local" is, in my view, very much in the eye of the beholder, and if you see "local" as "not national", as you wrote above, then frankly most newspapers, everywhere, since they invariably focus on a local area (city, town, county, state), would not contribute to notability. So we're left with say USA Today or in Britain The Guardian. If one's idea of "local" is size-related, then a city of 120,000 persons is clearly not insignificant, which Gloucester is. Frankly, I would have revamped the page earlier, and so many people have come across the substandard article, with their eyes glazing over with boring discussions such as this one between you and me, that they just vote Delete out of boredom, even though (in my view) she's notable. Just that I'm probably not going to revamp this article, even if it stays; got other stuff to do.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 20:35, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
- And there, I think, is possibly the crux of the matter. You do not understand how the British media works and assume it works the same way as the American media does. This is not the case. We have about ten national newspapers (all printed in London) and many local papers, which generally cover only very small areas (usually a single town or city or an area of a county) and generally only report on very localised issues (my local paper, in a city of well over 300,000 people, largely reports on such issues as the refurbishment of shopping centres, the efforts of local councillors to improve the drains, and the injury of locals in road accidents; it does not have anything to say on government policy or international affairs, since that is not its remit). Unlike America, most people who read newspapers read a national paper, although they may also buy a local paper for purely local news. Only the national papers are really valid in terms of establishing notability, as the local papers will report copiously on anything of local interest, including local councillors and candidates. If someone is not covered in the national press then it's a fair bet that they are not really notable enough for a Wikipedia article. -- Necrothesp (talk) 23:27, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
- If I "understand" British media correctly. If there's a "local" paper such as the Gloucester Citizen, then it won't have any national articles like this one in it, or this one, or this one about the royal couple's upcoming due date. Or, maybe since the Duke and Duchess are covered in the Gloucester citizen, then they're not notable.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 00:17, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
- You will notice that comments beneath the first article have queried why it's in a local paper in the first place, the second article is relevant to Gloucestershire and mentions a Gloucestershire farm, the third, well, the Royal Family are the Royal Family and everyone likes to write about them. My point stands. There is a big difference in Britain between national and local media that is perhaps not so obvious in some other countries. Your last sentence is patently ridiculous, since they are covered in the national media. A lot. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:00, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
- If I "understand" British media correctly. If there's a "local" paper such as the Gloucester Citizen, then it won't have any national articles like this one in it, or this one, or this one about the royal couple's upcoming due date. Or, maybe since the Duke and Duchess are covered in the Gloucester citizen, then they're not notable.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 00:17, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
- And there, I think, is possibly the crux of the matter. You do not understand how the British media works and assume it works the same way as the American media does. This is not the case. We have about ten national newspapers (all printed in London) and many local papers, which generally cover only very small areas (usually a single town or city or an area of a county) and generally only report on very localised issues (my local paper, in a city of well over 300,000 people, largely reports on such issues as the refurbishment of shopping centres, the efforts of local councillors to improve the drains, and the injury of locals in road accidents; it does not have anything to say on government policy or international affairs, since that is not its remit). Unlike America, most people who read newspapers read a national paper, although they may also buy a local paper for purely local news. Only the national papers are really valid in terms of establishing notability, as the local papers will report copiously on anything of local interest, including local councillors and candidates. If someone is not covered in the national press then it's a fair bet that they are not really notable enough for a Wikipedia article. -- Necrothesp (talk) 23:27, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
- I guess my problem is the whole idea of "local" is, in my view, very much in the eye of the beholder, and if you see "local" as "not national", as you wrote above, then frankly most newspapers, everywhere, since they invariably focus on a local area (city, town, county, state), would not contribute to notability. So we're left with say USA Today or in Britain The Guardian. If one's idea of "local" is size-related, then a city of 120,000 persons is clearly not insignificant, which Gloucester is. Frankly, I would have revamped the page earlier, and so many people have come across the substandard article, with their eyes glazing over with boring discussions such as this one between you and me, that they just vote Delete out of boredom, even though (in my view) she's notable. Just that I'm probably not going to revamp this article, even if it stays; got other stuff to do.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 20:35, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
- I think you must have either misread or misunderstood. I said routine coverage in local media did not make someone notable. I did not say that one had to hold national office to be notable. Clearly mayors of major cities and state governors hold major offices and are covered in the national media. And unelected candidates for the Senate or Parliament are not notable for that alone, although they may of course be notable for something else. In fact, I am following Wikipedia's long-established standards for notability. It is you who seems to be saying WP:ILIKEIT and pointing to a collection of minor local news stories and official mentions of her doing her job as a mid-ranking officer as proof of her "notability"! You may notice that as yet you are a lone voice here? Why do you think that might be? -- Necrothesp (talk) 20:25, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
- By your "not national" logic, then, neither all mayors of US cities would not be considered notable, nor US governors, nor presidential candidates who lost, nor candidates for US senate who lost, pretty much the encyclopedia would be limited to persons elected to national office. This is absurd; Wikipedia covers numerous candidates, mayors, members of Parliament (elected and unelected candidates too) because they meet the WP:GNG not because of some rule that only elected national candidates are notable. Or, in the United Kingdom, city mayors would not be notable simply because they were not national politicians, which again clearly does not make sense. Your argument that somehow the existing sources are "routine" is vacuous; routine means repeated regular stuff, nothing about the sources is routine. Rather, seems like you are simply voting delete because you don't like it and making up rules to skirt the GNG.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 16:16, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
- "Local" means "not national"! We usually only accept substantial coverage in the national press as proof of notability. She was a wing commander in the RAF, which is a mid-ranking officer and not sufficient for notability (usually we would require her to be at least an air commodore). Being a parliamentary candidate does not mean someone is notable; this is a long-established standard. There are tens of thousands (at least) of political candidates internationally every year. "Routine" coverage means she has only been covered for "routine" things: being an RAF spokesman and a political candidate, for instance. Sorry, but nothing makes her stand out as a person more notable than any other person. If we had articles on everyone who was good at their job, stood for election and was written about because of it in the local press then we just wouldn't be a serious encyclopaedia. There have to be limits. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:49, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
- Don't see how Gloucester is a "local" place when it has a population of 123,000 persons. Serving in the Royal Air Force is a national endeavor which she did with notable distinction; so is running for Parliament. Not sure how the coverage is "routine" since it varies considerably -- it is not the same story running again and again, but rather new and different stories, in-depth, as required by the WP:GNG.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 12:39, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
- What you have given us are local newspaper articles (yes, they do tend to write about local political candidates), her profile on a business website and a few mentions in articles relating to the RAF. This does not establish notability. It's purely routine coverage. If we accepted this as proof of notability then a large percentage of the population would be notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:22, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
- The rule 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", so the issue of "unelected candidate" is irrelevant -- clearly she meets the WP:GNG.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 21:38, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
- Where is there a Wikipedia guideline that says "Candidacy for election is not a claim of notability that gets a person into an encyclopedia"? And when is a RAF leader "routine"?--Tomwsulcer (talk) 01:23, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
- Candidacy for election is not a claim of notability that gets a person into an encyclopedia, so media coverage of the candidacy does not contribute to getting the candidate over WP:GNG. The media are legally and ethically required to give coverage to all candidates in any election in their coverage area, so the existence of said coverage falls under WP:ROUTINE — short of an unusual case on the order of the international media firestorm that ate Christine O'Donnell, if you cannot properly source that she was already notable enough for an article before she became a candidate, then she has to win the election to become notable enough and coverage of the candidacy itself cannot boost her notability in the meantime. Further, [2] and [3] are both primary sources that cannot contribute to her notability at all. Update: Should have added [4] as well; that's an article that she wrote herself, making it yet another invalid PRIMARYSOURCE. Bearcat (talk) 01:10, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
- Sources include this one, this one, this one, plus check this out. Also here and here and here and mention here in the BBC, plus the numerous other articles above.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 15:11, 17 October 2014 (UTC) Also here; plenty of in-depth sources means she easily meets the WP:GNG.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 15:19, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
- Unelected candidate, thereby automatically failing WP:NPOL, with no strong or properly sourced claim to preexisting notability under another guideline — almost all of the sourcing here is of the primary source variety. No prejudice against recreation if and when she wins the seat, but right now she's a delete. Bearcat (talk) 01:13, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
- Don't see how "all of the sourcing here is of the primary variety" -- do you mean the current article, or sources I've pointed out here?--Tomwsulcer (talk) 01:23, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
- In the article. Let's go over them, shall we? #1: Alumni newsletter of the elementary school she attended; #2: RAF; #4: her own LinkedIn profile; #5: Labour Party website; #6: profile on the webpage of a company she works for; #7: RAF; #8: Labour Party newsletter; #10: Labour Party newsletter. WP:PRIMARYSOURCES all. Leaves us with only #3, 9, 11 and 12, of which three are, guess what: more WP:ROUTINE coverage of the candidacy. Which means #3 is the only one that contributes anything to getting her over GNG, and one source isn't enough to put her over by itself. Bearcat (talk) 02:27, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
- See, that's the problem. You're basing your deletion on sources currently in the article (which I agree are clearly problematic). But article content does not determine notability -- and clearly there are numerous reliable independent secondary sources, listed in my previous posts on this page.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 11:56, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
- In the article. Let's go over them, shall we? #1: Alumni newsletter of the elementary school she attended; #2: RAF; #4: her own LinkedIn profile; #5: Labour Party website; #6: profile on the webpage of a company she works for; #7: RAF; #8: Labour Party newsletter; #10: Labour Party newsletter. WP:PRIMARYSOURCES all. Leaves us with only #3, 9, 11 and 12, of which three are, guess what: more WP:ROUTINE coverage of the candidacy. Which means #3 is the only one that contributes anything to getting her over GNG, and one source isn't enough to put her over by itself. Bearcat (talk) 02:27, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
- Don't see how "all of the sourcing here is of the primary variety" -- do you mean the current article, or sources I've pointed out here?--Tomwsulcer (talk) 01:23, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
- Redirect to Next United Kingdom general election; Subject appears to not have received significant coverage outside of being a candidate in an upcoming election; therefore per WP:POLOUTCOMES the article should be made into a redirect into the article about that particular race. Outside of the political race subject does not appear to receive significant coverage from tertiary reliable sources to indicate subject is notable per WP:GNG, WP:SOLDIER, or WP:NPOL.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 19:48, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
- Redirect per MelanieN. Yes, she's done a lot - but is it worthy of a place in an encyclopaedia? Would an article have been even thought of about her if she hadn't been standing for parliament? Probably not. Yes, I'm cynical. But I've seen a lot of articles like this that only surface around the time of an election. Peridon (talk) 19:15, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
- Delete. Obvious WP:COI, and copyvio/close-paraphrased from here. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 23:08, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 22:04, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
- *Commment Actually, WP:GNG doesn't mention local media at all. JTdale Talk 04:47, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
- 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.