Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Miranda Grell

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 Keep. NawlinWiki 03:23, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Miranda Grell

Miranda Grell (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Local councillor who has been in the news a bit. Long precedent that people who are local councillors without any other claim for notability are not notable. In this case, if the conviction holds then her political career is over, and if it doesn't, she isn't notable for her election either. Also, probably created as a POV campaign by a political opponent. Fys. “Ta fys aym”. 14:44, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

  • Without the fact of being the first person ever to be convicted under this political law, the Cllr would not be notable, but with that fact I'd say she is notable, and therefore weak keep. The motivation of the page creator is irrelevant, what matters is its content (some NPOV tweaks are probably required). The text needs rearranging so that the court case is not the first section - the life history should be first. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fig wright (talk • contribs) 18:13, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. I initially created this page; as for my motives, WP:AGF. WP:BIO includes as notable "Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage." This case has received considerable press coverage; cases such as hers are rare and, as said, she is the first person to be convicted under this law. I would welcome further editors improving the page. Bondegezou 20:31, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep The press coverage is significant enough to make her notable as per WP:BIO. Have rearranged the article a bit as suggested above by User:Fig wright. Davewild 07:36, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep As someone who contributed to the article, I was surprised to see this suggested for deletion (particularly as it is pretty well referenced and linked). If she was "just" a councillor she would not be notable but this is a "rising star" [1] who is the first person to be successfully prosecuted under ROPA '83. If her prosecution helps to dissuade other candidates from seeking to smear their rivals, then any prominence the case gets is to be welcomed (particularly as the smear is one that has led to ‘vigilante’ violence elsewhere). Ned de Rotelande 16:39, 24 September 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nedrutland (talk • contribs)
    • Comment. Several further articles in the press have been added since this AfD was opened. Bondegezou 19:20, 27 September 2007 (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.