Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jill Fraser

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 of the debate was DELETE. -Splash^talk 01:11, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jill Fraser

The article is on a local councillor (and failed parliamentary candidate in the 2005 general election). It demonstrates no further notability or significance. There is no evidence that she is a major local figure who has had significant press coverage. I proposed the article for deletion but this was removed. The article has not been improved since, hence the AfD. Delete as not meeting WP:BIO. Sliggy 17:02, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

(note, in particular, that the Guardian link in the article is to an automatic database that included the votes gathered by every candidate in the last election, whether the candidate got 1 vote or won the consituency). Sliggy 17:04, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Major local political figures who receive significant press coverage Coming second in an election and failing to become an MP is not sufficient grounds for notability, even if Ms Fraser took 11% of the vote from Frank Dobson.  (aeropagitica)  17:57, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
• Retain: There are currently *many* articles on people who have been candidates in various elections aronud the world, and this person is but one. Whilst I see no especially reason to retain this one more than the other similar people I likewise see no reason to delete this one whilst retaining all the others. For that matter, I do not see any urgent need to delete such type of articles generally as these people had a moment of 'fame' that will remain of interest to people interested in politics in the future, no matter that they did not succeed in the election in which they stood. Wikipedia is not paper is relevant here as it does us no harm to retain such reference material and, imho, does us great good. We cannot presume that other data sources (such as the Guardian one listed) will remain free to users. On the one thing There is no evidence that she is a major local figure who has had significant press coverage btw, she had very significant press coverage as she took the seat she took from Labour (the party in power) in a bye-election victory which overturned a safe seat for that other party, indeed the seat of the Leader of the council. Whilst we would not write an article on these people this far after the event there is no clear reason to delete it after the event/

Could I separately suggest that consideration for any deletions for people who hold council seats in London and the metropolitans (who are up for re-election in May) are held over until that happens as they may sibstantially change what is written in those articles. --Vamp:Willow 18:05, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

• Weak delete appears to have received no press coverage. All search hits are either her site, her party's site or election databases. Fagstein 19:32, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per nom. Dlyons493 Talk 21:38, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete not notable Gleng 21:58, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. No evidence of significant national media coverage either as a councillor or as a candidate. Capitalistroadster 00:51, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete "some cruft exists therefore no cruft may be deleted" is not persuasive. Just zis Guy you know? 09:52, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
• I think the current practice for failed political candidates with no other real notability is to Smerge/Redirect with the article on the election if there is one, and to create one and then do so if there is not. -Colin Kimbrell 19:14, 5 March 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.