Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Elizabeth Shenton

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 delete. Those arguing for keeping this based on a more generous interpretation of WP:POLITICIAN make a fairly good case, but the majority consensus seems to reject that interpretation and applies a narrower interpretation of policy. Arkyan 17:33, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Elizabeth Shenton

Elizabeth Shenton (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View log)

Delete per ample precedent that being an unsuccessful candidate in a British parliamentary election does not confer notability. Timrollpickering (talk) 07:56, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

  • Query: The relevant notability policy states that "major local political figures who have received significant press coverage" are considered notable. "Just being an elected local official, or 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." As the candidate for the third party in one of the most significant by-elections in a generation, surely she has received significant coverage? A quick search on Lexis Nexis shows up 64 articles in the last month, including national newspapers; Some of these will be mere mentions in passing but others I have seen are definitely not. I agree with you that simply being a candidate in a by-election does not confer notability but there is a serious argument to be made that she has garnered significant coverage. My query is: could you reframe your objection in terms of how this fails to meet WP:POLITICIAN? TreveXtalk 18:11, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
  • I'm not convinced Crewe & Nantwich is going to be seen as such a significant by-election in the long term but that's for history to decide. But we should be wary of recentism, encouraged by media hype (largely because by-elections are much rarer nowadays than in the past). In terms of whether or not being a candidate in a by-election that is considered significant, I offer the following lack of articles from the last ninety years: Newport by-election, 1922 (seen as the death knell for the Lloyd George Coalition) - none on J. W. Bowen or William Lynden Moore; Westminster St George's by-election, 1931 (a referendum on Baldwin's leadership of the Conservatives) - no article on Ernest Petter; Fulham East by-election, 1933 (regarded as a vote for pacifism and a key contributor appeasement) - no article on William Waldron; Liverpool Wavertree by-election, 1935 (the government comes acropper on its India policy due to Randolph Churchill's intervention) no article on James Platt (that article is on a US representative); Carmarthen by-election, 1957 (amidst divisions over Suez the Liberal Party drops to its lowest ever number of MPs thanks to Megan Lloyd George) - no article on John Morgan Davies; Orpington by-election, 1962 (famous Liberal gain on a huge swing) - no article on Peter Goldman; Carmarthen by-election, 1966 (Plaid Cymru's historic breakthrough) - no article on Gwilym Davies (that just leads to a disambiguation page that he isn't on); Hamilton by-election, 1967 (the SNP's historic breakthrough) - no article on Alexander Wilson (that article is on a late 18th/early 19th century Scottish poet, ornithologist, naturalist and illustrator); Lincoln by-election, 1973 (Dick Taverne takes on left-wing militants in his CLP) - no article on John Dilks; Glasgow Govan by-election, 1973 (historic SNP gain) - no article on John Mair (that article is about a 16th century Scottish philosopher); Ilford North by-election, 1978 (the last Conservative gain in opposition and one that's been replayed in the media a lot recently) - no article on John Freeman (that's a disambiguation page and he's not on it); Warrington by-election, 1981 (the SDP baptism of fire) - no article on Stanley Sorrell; Crosby by-election, 1981 (the return of Shirley Williams) - no article on John Butcher (that just leads to a disambiguation page that he isn't on); Mitcham and Morden by-election, 1982 (the last Conservative gain) - no article on David Nicholas; Bermondsey by-election, 1983 (one of the biggest swings amidst some of the dirtiest campaigning) - no article on John O'Grady (that article's an Australian writer); Glasgow Govan by-election, 1988 (the SNP's second coming in the same constituency) - no article on Bob Gillespie (that article is about a US baseball palyer); Brent East by-election, 2003 (the anti-war backlash against New Labour) - no article on Uma Fernandes. All of these by-elections are more significant than a standard "government loses seat to opposition in the mid-term" by-election. There are some where the losing candidate does have an article but that's because of what else they did - for instance Ross and Cromarty by-election, 1936 (the National Government risks cracking open as a Cabinet Minister's return is opposed by a Conservative) has an article on Hector McNeil who was later an MP and minister, or Randolph Churchill (who was an MP, prominent journalist & author and high profile son of Winston Churchill). Just being a candidate in what were very significant by-elections does not make one notable in themselves.
  • Yes Elizabeth Shenton has been in a number of press articles about the by-election but most contain standard listings of all the candidates or the results. And it's much the standard fare for candidates in parliamentary elections, including by-elections. I don't see how the by-election in any way raises her above the notability threshold or make her more notable than the others above. Timrollpickering (talk) 14:51, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom, her only other claim is being a local councillor, which carries no inherent notability as noted here. Darrenhusted (talk) 09:52, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Carter | Talk to me 10:20, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom: I am surprised that parliamentary candidates are eligible for articles in the first place solely on the basis of their candidacy - we risk being deluged with all sorts of non-notable guff if this is the case. --Smerus (talk) 10:41, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete: If we keep this, we will have to undelete loads of other non-notable articles...... Dendodge .. TalkHelp 11:38, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment This is being discussed right now in [1] Iain Dale's Diary, where a number of bloggers are saying that Tim Roll Pickering who initiated this AFD is a Tory activist - does this matter? I would have thought that the day after an election, for a political opponent to suddenly want to AFD a rival's entry seems not to follow general Wikipedia guidelines on conduct, am I right? Smorgasm (talk) 12:04, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
No, you're wrong. This article should never have been created, as the person sole claim to any notability was being a candiadate (and councillor). I was going to nominate the losing candidates once the by-election was over anyway. Mike Natrass is an MEP, Tamsin Dunwoody is a former AM and Timpson is now an MP, Shenton is only a councillor, which carries no notability. That Iain Dale is discussing it is neither here nor there, there are clear policies on this WP:BIO and WP:N being the most important. Darrenhusted (talk) 14:52, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
But Tim is a conservative party member and activist and his intention is clearly political, which Iain Dale applauds - surely this is against WP:CONFLICT? 81.149.153.146 (talk) 14:59, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
WP:COI applies to the creation of articles, not the AfD process. Darrenhusted (talk) 15:03, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
Say what?? Since when? I quote directly from the WP:COI page...

"How to avoid COI edits Wikipedia is "the encyclopedia that anyone can edit," but if you have a conflict of interest avoid, or exercise great caution when:

Editing articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with"

Tim is a leading Tory activist working for Conservative Central Office and in concert with leading Tory blogger and publicist Iain Dale. You can't get much more blatantly competitive than that. 81.149.153.146 (talk) 17:02, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

  • Retain: This is an historic bye-election. This article will be a subject of acdamic interrest for many decades. It would be an irresponsible act to delete this entry. To delete it would an Orwellian act of the use of the 'Memory Hole". If this is deleted then a good quarter of the articles on wikipedia should go either on the basis of inaccuracy, irrelevance or bias. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.64.142.228 (talk) 14:55, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Retain: Disagree with Darren entirely. It is perfectly reasonable to create an entry for a candidate in an upcoming parliamentary election/by-election, particularly where the candidate is a member of a mainstream party and therefore has at least some prospect, however small, of being elected. Had she been successful in winning the seat, then the notability criteria would have been satisfied. There is clearly a conduct issue here in the manner in which this was AfD'd. Not only is their a clear bias in Tim Roll-Pickering's actions, but the fact that it is being discussed on a prominent political blog within a few hours of being AfD'd suggests that at least part of the intent here may have to set up an opportunity for a bit of cheap gloating. By all means review the article in a month or so to see if there's sufficient interest to warrant its retention, but it be retained until it becomes clear whether there may be anything like the interest that the previous comment suggests —Preceding unsigned comment added by Unity2705 (talk • contribs) 15:13, 23 May 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Unity2705 (talk • contribs)
It looks like the Iain Dale entry has brought along some SPAs. Darrenhusted (talk)
  • Delete per nom, consistent with other AfDs on councillors and by-election candidates. Oh, not that Tim's affiliations matter here, but he has been entirely consistent with this issue of notability and has nominated failed candidates councillors of all parties. Martín (saying/doing) 15:16, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Clearly this shouldn't be deleted, especially on political grounds (and I say this as a non-Lib Dem). There is still demand for this information - I am an example of someone who has just searched the page to see more about her (and I did the same for some of the other candidates). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.60.38.198 (talk) 16:15, 23 May 2008 (UTC) This IP address, 194.60.38.198, is registered to the British Houses of Parliament and is shared by multiple users.

  • Keep. It never ceases to amaze me how people assume non-notability. I'd like to see someone classify me as a SPA. As far as I can ascertain it meets all the primary criteria for notability as well as the Biography#Politicians criteria. Precedent with other political figures is just a cheap way of ducking the issue. A small, balanced, referenced and notable article isn't a bad thing now is it? Harlsbottom (talk) 16:21, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep. Elizabeth Shenton is self-evidently notable, whoever the heck she is. 81.149.153.146 (talk) 16:51, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete. Non-notable local councillor. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 17:06, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete per plenty of precedent. Tim R-P's conduct is irrelevant to the AFD and should be taken up elsewhere. LondonStatto (talk) 17:16, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment As several people, including a number of random IPs are questioning my motivation for nominating the article I'd like to set a few matters straight:
    • 1). There is indeed ample precedent in past AFDs that being or having been an unsuccessful parliamentary candidate in the Westminster system does not make someone inherently notable. And by-elections have been found to be no different. Ditto local councillors. Hence the nomination. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Common outcomes#People where it says:
      • Candidates for a national legislature are not viewed as having inherent notability. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Antonia Bance (second nomination). However, such candidates are permitted inclusion in a merged list of candidate biographies, such as New Democratic Party candidates, 2004 Canadian federal election. (Note, however, that some dissent may be expressed if the election campaign in question is currently underway — however, dissent has also been engineered on occasion by the candidate's own campaign office, so monitor this for potential sockpuppetry.) Also, review the whole article before nominating it for deletion, as the person may be legitimately notable for other reasons, such as having previously held another elective office. The fact that the incumbent has an article is not, in and of itself, a valid reason to keep articles on electoral opponents who have not already achieved notability — Wikipedia is not a campaign tool.
    • 2). As others have pointed out, the other candidates in the by-election who have articles include the new MP, a former Welsh Assembly Member, an MEP and the current Miss Great Britain. With the possible exception of the last (as I haven't much experience of AFDs on beauty contest winners) there is ample precedent that holding any of those positions confers notability. Hence not nominating any of them for deletion.
    • 3). I have in the past nominated articles on ex candidates and councillors from both main parties as well as the Liberal Democrats and other small parties, all on the same consistent principle that they do not meet the threshold for notability.
    • 4). Wikipedia articles by definition tend to attract editors who have interest in or vague connections to the subject matter. However anyone routinely just making AFD nominations with an axe to grind would rapidly be noticed and the discussions speedily closed. Regular editors from all parties often comment on these AFDs and frequently they do come to the same conclusions - in this area that both being/having been a candidate and being/having been a local councillor does not meet the notability threshold.
    • 5). Even before polling day another user added a template to the article querying notability.
    • 6). Accusations of bias often come (although not exclusively) from people who are not regular editors of Wikipedia and who lack familiarity with the AFD debates.
    • 7). I refute the accusation that I work for Conservative Central Office (I have never done so) or that I am in concert with Iain Dale. (I won't bother disputing the outdated "Tory" tag from someone who may well be a "Whig".) I have no idea how Iain discovered this but if this were a deliberate set-up then surely I would have covered my tracks?
    • 8). All of this should be irrelevant to the discussion at hand which is whether or not Elizabteh Shenton meets the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia.
  • Timrollpickering (talk) 17:43, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep I have just added two citations to extremely reliable sources - the BBC and the Guardian. These are for separate incidents - the by-election and her union role in the Natwest takeover. Since she is, in addition, a local politician and general activist, I expect that we will be seeing more of her. There is no merit in this nomination. Colonel Warden (talk) 17:52, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete. Even whilst she was a candidate, I think notability was pretty borderline; now the only assertion of notability is that she is a serving councillor. Insufficient. DWaterson (talk) 19:13, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Notability does not expire; it accumulates. Every time this person gets into the national news, as has happened repeatedly, she becomes increasingly worthy of note. We are not voting for office here; we are recording history. Colonel Warden (talk) 19:26, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Erm, did you read my comment? "Even whilst she was a candidate, I think notability was pretty borderline..." And probably below that borderline, not above. DWaterson (talk) 20:13, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Yes, I read your comment and beg to differ. This person was notable before being selected. Because the by-election was important, that party obviously took some care to select a good candidate. She was previously notable for her elected position as a councillor; for her high-profile trade union role at Natwest and for her leadership of a significant civic project. The by-election added hugely to this notability and the result is unimportant. Furthermore, she is now notable because this AFD is being mentioned in the national press - an unusual distinction. The original nominator might be excused because the article was poorly sourced and developed at the time of the nomination. Now that it has been improved substantially and references some of the numerous reliable sources about this person, the notability of this person is evident. Persistence in the face of this evidence suggests political or other bias and so should be discounted. Colonel Warden (talk) 12:30, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete. This individual does not hold a notable office, and being an unsuccessful candidate in a high profile campaign does not give her notability. Mas 18 dl (talk) 19:35, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep I find the arguments put forward by Trevex and Colonel Warden above convince me more than those opposed. She has been on TV a great deal now in the UK and is pretty well known. Smorgasm (talk) 19:58, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete. A candidate from the third party comes third in a by-election; that's pretty "dog bites man" stuff. I'm fairly sure that history will note the 2008 Crewe and Nantwich by-election for its 17.6% swing from Labour to Conservative. It was wrong to create the page for Shenton in the first place, and it's certainly wrong to keep it now. — Wereon (talk) 20:58, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep. Sure it's borderline but I expect we'll be seeing more of her fairly soon. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 21:25, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete. I am not persuaded by incidental coverage of a candidacy, and other coverage is not about her but in connection with her job. Fails WP:POLITICIAN. --Dhartung | Talk 22:34, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete - no lasting notability. It would of course have been different if she'd won the election, which is why it's right this wasn't nominated until afterwards, but now it's over it's clear she fails WP:BIO and is likely to remain that way. Terraxos (talk) 00:42, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
  • WP:BIO states A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject. If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be needed to prove notability. On the subject of politicians, it goes on to say, Just being an elected local official, or 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." We have all that. There's nothing in there which says that if you lose an election, then your accumulated notability evaporates. You seem to be misinterpreting and misrepresenting the guideline contrary to the general statement that the guideline should be should be treated with common sense . I'm not seeing the sense here, common or otherwise. Colonel Warden (talk) 08:43, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment While searching for sources, I found this item in the Evening Standard which is a major London newspaper:
The Londoner's Diary - TAMSIN Dunwoody may be feeling disconsolate this morning but at least she doesn't face imminent obliteration on the internet. Conservative blogger Iain Dale notes that the Liberal Democrat candidate Elizabeth Shenton's Wikipedia entry has already been "marked for deletion". "They used to say there is nothing so 'ex' than an 'ex' MP, but that goes doubly for ex byelection candidates," he writes.
But perhaps this is a little harsh. ...

This AFD nomination is literally a public disgrace for Wikipedia. Colonel Warden (talk) 09:06, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

  • Comment How on earth is that relevant here? Is Wikipedia to be restricted to only discussing topics that won't get mentioned in the Evening Standard? DWaterson (talk) 12:20, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete And to avoid any claims of WP:COI I am a member of the Liberal Democrats. As has been mentioned, Elizabeth Shenton is just a councillor. Other failed candidates in this election include a sitting MEP (fairly notable I'd say) and the current Miss Great Britain. Ms Shenton is at the third tier of British politics; Wiki would have to expand by some 10,000 or more were every city, district, town, borough, parish, or community councillor suddenly had the chance to transfer their Facebook account to here. Last time, the LibDems came third in C&N. This time...we came third again. As much as I wish her well, until she becomes an MP, the article cannot remain doktorb wordsdeeds 18:21, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment There are lots and lots of minor conservative councillors from previous slightly, but not hugely, higher roles who have retained articles. See for example Lisa Francis (conservative town councillor for Aberystwyth) (!) who was previously an AM and former candidates who came second or third, see for example Damian Collins who came second in Northampton North 2005. Most of the arguments for deletion above are based on similar levels of lack of notoriety. Smorgasm (talk) 10:49, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Comment. Lisa Francis: er yes, as you say, a former AM = notable. Damian Collins: you may have a point here; although as PPC for the incumbent party there is a reasonable prospect that he may hold the seat at the next election. Perhaps you would like to propose that article for AFD so it can be considered more thoroughly? DWaterson (talk) 12:20, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
      • That's not the point - those are only two examples I was able to locate within seconds; there are many more. The whole basis of this Afd is that she is not notable as we are led to believe (or it has been claimed) that the Wikipedia precedent is for local councillors or failed candidates of the above sort to not be considered notable. Clearly there is no such precedent and it's bunk. Hence we are back to speculating why this Afd was kicked-off. And back to noting Iain Dale's euphoric "discovery" of it's proposed deletion just by "chance" the morning after the election. Smorgasm (talk) 13:40, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
Assuming good faith should be the point. Anyway that's immaterial. In plenty of AfD discussions being a failed candidate for a national legislature and/or a local councillor has not been grounds for notability. Inevitably it's easier to find examples which have slipped through or not been through the AfD process, but where there has been a full debate between established editors, consensus has been as above. See Alexander Hilton (actually asserted notability beyond political activity), Marilyne MacLaren, David Kendall & 12 others, Gavin Barwell, Bridget Fox, Melanie Smallman, Pat Anderson and Bob Civil (a Conservative cllr nominated for deletion by, err, Tim - there were others, see here). Martín (saying/doing) 14:17, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete - Non notable per WP:BIO as she fails to meet any of the criteria for the inclusion of a politician. Indeed its unfortunate that we've now got to the stage where articles are being created for people standing for anything, due mainly to those contributing them simply not being aware of the minimum standard needed for inclusion. - Galloglass 15:10, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete - if we let her through, every Tom, Dick and Harriet who contests a seat and loses is going to have justification for a WP page.Bedesboy (talk) 17:52, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
  • strong delete almost the epitome of non-notable. "she worked for natwest and has problems paying her bills' or something- highly notable stuff! (no offence meant, elizabeth) :) Sticky Parkin 02:34, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Such material comes from reliable sources such as national newspapers who have discussed her extensively - even the names of all her seven cats. Notability is determined by such indications that others have found her worthy of note. Our personal opinion of her importance is irrelevant. See Notability guideline for details. Colonel Warden (talk) 09:46, 27 May 2008 (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.