Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Diane E. Benson (second 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. — CharlotteWebb 02:15, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Diane E. Benson

This article was previously deleted through AfD. A DRV consensus overturned in light of input from members of WikiProject Alaska. I wish to make clear that there no flaw in procedure, and no error on the part of the previous closer; sufficient interest of a large number of well-informed established editors, unaware of the prior discussion, is itself a valid reason for relisting. This matter is submitted at AfD for new consideration. This is a procedural listing, so I abstain. Xoloz 16:46, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

I am confused; I went to the policy page, but I don't see where an overturned deletion review should have its article renominated as a matter of procedure. Are we to go through a new discussion? we just did one-- Deirdre 21:25, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Absolutely, we relist. Absent an overwhelming consensus (roughly 75% or more), success at DRV only means that the item is undeleted and relisted. DRV is mostly a forum for cloture, and rarely is DRV the final stage of a debate. Clearly, this matter was disputed; although relisters obtained a majority, they fell far short of an overwhelming consensus to undelete outright. See the white box at the top of the DRV page. Xoloz 22:21, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. Benson was notable and newsworthy before she ran for the Senate as an artist and writer. Arguments for deletion was based on her being a candidate with little chance of winning, not on her notability as a Tlingit writer. She has had substantial press coverage before the election. Luigizanasi 23:48, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep -- In addition to her artistic notability, she is known for her role in a controversy over academic freedom that received national (National Review) as well as local (Anchorage Press) coverage. This meets the criteria of "renown or notoriety for their involvement in newsworthy events" (Wikipedia:Notability (people)). -- Shunpiker 01:03, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep The most notable thing about the subject is her news coverage for the Congressional race. Regardless of the likelihood of the success of a Green candidate in an Alaskan race, I beleive she has sufficient news coverage to make a claim of notability. Samm Simpson, Bill Young's snowball opponent, gets 2 by comparison. (I will not nominate her article due to a conflict of interest. As much as doubt her notability.)
  • 34 google news hits.
  • "Witness to the Stolen- no rank at amazon.
  • "When My Spirit Raised its Hands" no results at amazon
  • "Sister Warrior" no results at amazon
  • "Spirit of Woman" no results at amazon
  • "Freight, Moon and Inconvenience" no results at amazon
  • "When Raven Cries" ranks #2,700,000 at amazon
  • "Umyuugwagka: My Mind, My Consciousness. An Anthology of Poetry from the Arctic Regions" lists Anthony Selbourne as author. No rank
  • "Diane E. Benson" gets 118 unique google hits Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 01:09, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Though I would argue that her chief notability is in her artistic/cultural contributions and that her current political ambitions are of secondary and limited notability; and that of course significant news coverage and "newsworthiness" is not automatically a conferrer of encyclopedic notability. Bwithh 01:34, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete some old news hits and a book ranked at #2,700,000 hardly meets the threshold for inclusion in an encyclopedia. Should everyone who had the news once in their life get an article on wikipedia? I don't think so. Arbusto 08:49, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, notable Tlingit poet and playwright - notable for being one of only five professional Tlingit writers. Sufficient coverage in journals, etc, appended to article. Vizjim 09:06, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per above. --badlydrawnjeff talk 12:02, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Congressional candidate who is the nominee of a major party. Silversnake020 17:37, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep For all the reasons I've listed before: she's a major party candidate causing a ruckus in Alaska politics, she's an outspoken Tlingit woman author, and thus a relatively big fish in a small literary pond (Alaska literature, Alaska Native literature, Alaska women writers), and she's a relatively well-known Tlingit performer and playwright. Deirdre 21:02, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per above. Candidacy enough is probably not enough, but combined with her literary and playwright accomplishments . . . keep. -- Sholom 17:54, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
• 'Keep I question the wisdom of deleting major party candidates, especially for high office. Without an article, it will always appear that the incumbant is challenged by a "nobody"; which is a disservice to voters and political scholars. In past elections, losing opponents can be embedded in the winner's article, but current campaigns deserve separate pages. Of course, a separate page should be maintained post-election if there is notable professional accomplishment outside of and in addition to politics.
• Although there seems to be quite a few people interested in keeping this article, nobody has yet to show that she satisfies WP:BIO: In particular, we still have no reliable sources indicating any of the following:
  • The person has been the primary subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the person.
  • The person made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in their specific field.
  • Published authors, editors and photographers who received multiple independent reviews of or awards for their work.
  None of the existing links satisfy this: They are either not independent of Benson herself, or else mention her only obliquely. The exception is [1] which does not, to me, appear to be a reliable source, and in any case we are missing the "multiple" part of the requirements above. As I stated in the first AfD, we should keep this article if and only if she can be shown to satisfy WP:BIO. I will happly change my position to keep once this is done, but until then, Delete. Vectro 02:04, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Fully qualifies for an article. Much news coverage of her political activities. I also see no need for a relist when that was not the explicit outcome on DRV. Overtuning a flawed close should not lead to an automatic relist. --JJay 23:23, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

*Delete a third party canidate in a failed 2002 election is not notable. Arbusto 23:28, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

• No double "voting" thanks. Please consider your previous edits when shadowing my AfD participation. --JJay 00:13, 4 November 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.