Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rose Jackson (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. As it can be seen below, the debate was not primarily focused on the noteworthiness of the subject of the article but a lot of the keep recommendations were " per Rebecca ", and indeed, JzG also implied that he would have suggested a delete under more peaceful circumstances. For the record CSD G4 does not hold, as you can see by reading the restored deleted versions from October 2005 that at that stage the subject was only a university leader, but now she is a nationwide leader of NUS - G4 applies to things recreated with similar (or worse) content than when it was previously deleted. Perhaps a proper debate at a later time when we are all focussed on content would be prudent. Feel free to inquire about my decision. Thanks, Blnguyen | rant-line 00:26, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rose Jackson

Vanity, lacks information on the importance of the subect & Vandlism (Removed tags but nothing fixed) Feedyourfeet 07:37, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy keep as bad-faith nomination. This is the second article I've edited recently that appears to have been AfDd by this guy today as WP:POINT retaliation for having voted to delete Stephen Battaglia and Zazz, both of which were authored by the nominator. As to Jackson's notability, she is the current president of a major national union, something which is clearly evident in the article. The "tags" referred to were bogus verifiability tags that kept being re-added despite requests to explain what, if anything, was actually disputed. Rebecca 07:41, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
  • For the record, an old version of this article was successfully AfDd last October, but that version was a) before Jackson reached her current office and was still non-notable, and b) an attack article. Rebecca 08:00, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. agree. Jpeob 07:45, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

• Comment This article had been put up for AFD and was deleted before. It's not in bad faith as Rebecca is trying to twist, Many people voted in Stephen Battaglia and Zazz and i have nominated 2 out of how many users and article, The student union which she is president has 2 other past presidents that have there own page, 1 is now a politician but the other has the same ammount of info as Rose. The List of Office Bearers of the National Union of Students of Australia is also up for AFD. Feedyourfeet 08:03, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment The AfD'd article was substantially different. It was deleted without prejudice, as I understand it. Also, the article does make an assertion of notability; "vandalism" isn't a reason to delete an article and what you allege wasn't vandalism anyway. The prod tag says, "You may remove this message if you improve the article, or if you otherwise object to deletion of the article for any reason." The person who removed the prod provided references on the talk page. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 08:06, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment It was not the prod tag i was refering to. Feedyourfeet 08:16, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
      • Comment Well, if it was the verify and importance tags, CHANLORD made an assertion of importance and 4 references on the talk page. And even if it was "vandalism," that isn't a reason to delete the article. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 08:45, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Rebecca. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 08:06, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete G4 as recreated material from an AFD. --Xrblsnggt 08:15, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
  • The new page was created with different content, so it doesn't qualify for a CSD-G4 (the original page was created before the person was elected, the new page created after, for one). --Interiot 08:19, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Please look at WP:CSD#G4, this was not a "substantially identical copy." Sarah Ewart (Talk) 08:45, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
• Comment I would advocate deletion - student leaders change annually and usually go on to obscurity - but the fact that this is self-evidently a bad-faith nomination indicates a speedy close. Just zis Guy you know? 08:35, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment You are incorrect. Feedyourfeet 08:49, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
    • I think JzG is nearly spot-on. --Interiot 08:58, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment The nom was likely retribution, but the discussion should not be to judge the intentions of the nominator. Otherwise, all noms could descend into bad faith witch hunts. --Xrblsnggt 09:29, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment I don't typically question JzG but I can't understand this position. If an article merits deletion then surely it merits deletion regardless of the motives behind the nomination. MLA 09:04, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete — Before reading the latest comments I was about to vote Delete based on WP:BIO - however after reading JzG's comment re it's G4 qualification (I lack the ability to view the content of deleted pages) I see no alternative. - Glen 08:47, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
  • The page as it stood when it was AfD'd is visible here. The next version was not a recreation (either way, a closing admin would be able to verify whether CSD-G4 votes are valid). --Interiot 08:58, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
  • This makes no sense, as there is absolutely no way the (relatively strict) G4 criteria can be attached to this article. An attack article was created in October 2005 about Jackson, who was then president of the student union at the University of Sydney. It was, entirely justifiably, deleted. In the meantime, Jackson has become president of the National Union of Students, which has put her on the national stage, and a neutral, verifiable article has been written about her. This is not a situation covered in any way, shape or form, by G4. Rebecca 09:01, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
• strong delete per WP:NN, and speedy per G4. Being student politician certainly isn't notable, and president of the NUS would only very slightly increase her notability. I reckon she would still have to cross the hurdle of party nomination for a safe parliamentary seat to become notable. Ohconfucius 08:59, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
  • See above. You're perfectly entitled to vote delete based on your own personal bar for notability, but please stop misusing the speedy deletion criteria. Rebecca 09:01, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment I thought the previous AfD version was better, certainly more interesting and noteworthy. Oh, and I think you may be overstating the importance of the NUS as "a major union" Ohconfucius 09:18, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Er, it was also utterly defamatory and completely unsourced. Please don't confuse the matter of whether you like the subject with their notability. Rebecca 09:26, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment I'm not confused. I [edit: could probably] agree that the office is notable. The subject is not notable, not yet, anyway. Those two are quite distinct, just like separate legal identity of a company and its members. My reference to the relative importance of the NUS is that Australian student politics is a subset of (>)Australian politics>Australian people>Australia>Southern Hemisphere>the world, and it's important to keep that in perspective. Ohconfucius

• Keep, I agree with Rebecca. --Terence Ong _{(Chat | Contribs)} 09:13, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
• Weak keep I'm not convinced the office is notable, but I am convinced deletion is premature. — Adrian Lamo ·· 09:26, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment seems inconsistent WP:NOT wiki is not a crystal ball. She may go on to do other/greater things, but that doesn't mean her entry deserves to be kept. Ohconfucius
• Delete with a comment. Since there is an article on the student union in question, perhaps a section of that article should be devoted to a list of officers past and present. As it stands, I feel that this person does not meet the notability criteria for her own article. --Cassavau 14:51, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep I recreated this article earlier this year without ever seeing the previous version, so the criteria for speedy deletion does not apply. Secondly, Rose Jackson is the current president of a National student union that represents over 38 seperate university unions in Australia, which in turn would represent hundreds of thousands of students. And to give you some perspective Gemma Tumelty is the current president of the National Union of Students of the United Kingdom and has a page on Wikipedia. -- CHANLORD ^[T]/_[C] 16:03, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per above. And don't misuse Speedy criteria. — Dark Shikari ^talk/_contribs 16:09, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Delete as per nom. Jackson is not notable, and I'm not sure Tumelty is either. wikipediatrix 16:10, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Parenthetically, I get the feeling we'll see this article again, even if deleted. Tychocat 16:44, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Currently, the subject does not appear to fail vanity or non-notability guidelines. Be sure to cite sources, because this sort of information should be verifiable.  Cdcon  16:46, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - this is an easy keep. I am puzzled that this AfD discussion contains everything from speedy keep to speedy delete. - Richardcavell 00:53, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep passes WP:BIO.  ALKIVAR™ 02:27, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Student leaders not notable, as above. If the office is notable enough to have an article, put it on there. — MrDolomite | Talk 03:28, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
• keep this please it is notable not speedy deletion criteria Yuckfoo 04:57, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. I get 50 hits on the Australia New Zealand database for Ms Jackson all related to education. That makes her notable enough for mine rather than just another student politician. Capitalistroadster 06:59, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Capitalistroadster 07:08, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Capitalistroadster. JPD (talk) 11:11, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Rebecca and Capitalistroadster this person is notable enough. RFerreira 19:26, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per those above. --Myles Long 22:00, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy keep per Rebecca.--cj | talk 03:24, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Rebecca. Sufficiently notable and newsworthy. Dreadlocke 05:24, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Does not warrant a seperate article. Her position only needs to be mentioned on the NUS article. Rafy 16:53, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
• Strong keep - per Rebecca. (JROBBO 00:18, 12 August 2006 (UTC))
• Strong Delete. Australian student politicians aren't inherently notable, and Rose certainly isn't. Their articles are merely a trove of unverifiability at which vandals congregate. Slac speak up! 05:00, 13 August 2006 (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.