Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Amelia Womack


 * 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. Although I've !voted I'm going to WP:BOLDLY follow WP:IAR and wrap this up, Consensus is overwhelmingly to keep as per GNG so keeping this open for the next 3-4 days is rather pointless and a waste of everyones time so am wrapping it up, Thanks, (non-admin closure) – Davey 2010 Talk 17:09, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Amelia Womack

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

The subject of the article is not in and of herself notable to pass WP:NPOL for the fact she is deputy leader of the Green Party of England and Wales per se —the depth and breadth of sourcing here is not enough to get her over WP:GNG in lieu. Of the twelve sources here, five are primary sources from the Green party directly, one is her Linkedin profile, one is a University search for her thesis, and two are election result pages, these cannot assist notability at all, leaving us with just three pieces of reliable source. Media coverage of campaign coverage falls under WP:ROUTINE, because everybody who was ever a candidate in any election anywhere could always show that much coverage, so this covers two more sources. Leaving one YouTube video which she is not the subject of, but seems that she appears in, this is though nowhere near the threshold to establish notability for this individual.To earn a Wikipedia article, people at this level of significance have to be shown as significantly more notable than the norm for this level of significance, but nothing here shows that at all. Sport and politics (talk) 19:40, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 19:59, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 19:59, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 19:59, 3 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep. I'd say she meets WP:NPOL, holding "sub-national (statewide/provincewide) office". The article needs better sources, yes, but deletion is not the solution. By the way, I don't understand what you mean by "people at this level of significance have to be shown as significantly more notable than the norm for this level of significance". Would you mind explaining?  Y intan  23:04, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Update - Just realised that your deletion rationale is almost a straight copy of Bearcat's delete argument here. Now I'm truly confused.  Y intan  23:13, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
 * It is a good template of why this individual not notable, and I have yes largely used that as the template for here. Also, expansion and explanation on how this minor deputy leader post makes someone who does not have general notability coverage notable is required. Lucas and Bartley yes as leaders, but deputy leader no way. This discussion needs more than just, it meets notability as a post, it is notable therefore because. In relation to the point of Womack being more notable, she cannot simply be notable for holding the post it must be shown that she is more notability than just "Holder of deputy leader post", and is notable in her own right. Sport and politics (talk) 09:05, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
 * As far as I can tell being the deputy leader of a national party is notable enough, according to the notability guidelines. It was certainly enough for her predecessors, they all have articles too. This is not, as you call it, "a minor post". She's not a failed councelor in some remote village.  Y intan  15:42, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Going to have to be more than it is simply because it is. She is just a post holder and that is it. simply holding this post does not confer notability. it is going to have to be established that this post is notable in and of itself for the holder of. simply stating it is notable because it not sufficient to pass WP:NPOL. The re-stating of it is notable because it is notable does pass muster, please provide evidence and reasons as to why it is a notable post making the post holder inherently notable simply for holding the post. Sport and politics (talk) 16:01, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm not going to repeat myself again.  Y intan  16:40, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
 * No reasons apart from it is just because have been given, it's nothing more than a vote saying "it simply is." Sport and politics (talk) 17:47, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Being deputy leader of a political party is enough for notability if the person is reliably sourced over WP:GNG for the fact. It is not an automatic inclusion freebie that entitles a person to keep an article that's parked almost entirely on primary sources and YouTube videos, as this is. Bearcat (talk) 14:19, 5 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep - deputy leader of a party with Parliamentary representation seems highly likely to confer notability, and a quick search turns up "Who's Who in the Green Party" from the New Statesman which includes a short profile, and makes a good case for her being a notable figure, and the ITV News piece is also good evidence, a national piece about her decision to stand in Wales, where the hook is that she is deputy leader of the party. Warofdreams talk 19:35, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I am not sure how this post is notable, a couple of sources here and there are hardly a demonstration of the ability to show the post os notable. It also seems to be drifitng to a wider discussion away from the subject and towards the post in and of itself, perhaps a better forum is needed to establish if this post is in and of itself is notable. Then this will be simpler. I will find an alternate location to transfer this discussion to and freeze this discussion when that has occurred.


 * Keep. Meets notability guidelines. A quick search finds 327 Google News hits including the following: Huffington Post, The Independent, Worcester Observer, Bright Green, Hampshire Chronicle, Times & Star, Music Week, Norfolk Eastern Daily Press, Metro News, The Guardian, etc. Other citations can be found on Google Books. Netherzone (talk) 21:12, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
 * The majority of this will be covered under GNG as she has stood for election, some will also be for people of the same name. Please if there are reliable sources which establish her individual, add them to her article. Having had a good look through most are general election coverage, and the Huffington Post is a self-published blog article. Sport and politics (talk) 21:15, 4 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep (weak) after checking sources, I think there's a lack of proof of meeting NPOL / GNG / NBIO in the article but the source above indicates there's more and enough. (as an OTHERSTUFF aside, what's the standard for other deputy leaders who aren't elected? Seems similar to Shahrar Ali). Widefox ; talk 22:54, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete, unless the article sees improvement. While being deputy leader of a political party can be enough for notability if the person is properly sourced as clearing WP:GNG, it is not an automatic inclusion freebie that guarantees an article regardless of sourcing issues — but this, as written, is based almost entirely on primary sources rather than reliable ones. Of the two citations that actually constitute media coverage, just one is actually about her to any significant and non-trivial degree; the other just namechecks her existence in a pro forma list of every candidate in an election that she ran in. And Netherzone's 327 Google News hits aren't strong ones, either — I see a lot of glancing namechecks of her existence in coverage of other things, and not any significant number of hits that are substantively about her. The Huffington Post hit, for example, does not represent coverage in which she's the subject — it's content in which she's the bylined author, which does not assist notability at all. I'm simply not seeing the depth or breadth of media coverage that it takes — when it comes to whether a person clears GNG or not, we care about the substance and quality of the Google News hits, not the raw number of them. Bearcat (talk) 14:19, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep Deputy leader of a fairly large national political party meets notability IMO. I don't think that because the article could do with expanding further is grounds for deletion. CarlDurose (talk) 09:22, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
 * "Deputy leader of a fairly large national political party" passes notability if the person is shown to be the subject of enough media coverage for that role to pass WP:GNG. It does not get an automatic "no good sourcing required" inclusion freebie just because she exists. Bearcat (talk) 05:01, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
 * The reason the article is empty is because there is nothing notable to say about the subject of the article, Simply being a post holder in a party with an MP is not anywhere near enough to justify having an article. More than simply opinion and it is a notable position, are going to have be shown. It must be demonstrated that the position in and of itself is a notable post. Simply saying it is in not demonstrating the post is in and of itself notable. Sport and politics (talk) 10:15, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Yesterday I added further citations to the article, from HuffPost, ITV News, London Evening Standard, and The Independent. CarlDurose (talk) 13:14, 7 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep as per above - Notable deputy leader who meets NPOL as well as GNG. – Davey 2010 Talk 10:35, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Please demonstarte the above, two points, neither one have been shown to be proved, simply say it is over the thresholds, is not enough. Sport and politics (talk) 11:43, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Meets NPOL #2 and Meets GNG which I've demonstrated below.


 * Just something to note the HuffPost blogs are written by Amelia herself so I've tried not to include those however notability is must certainly there,
 * Thanks. – Davey 2010 Talk 13:03, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Womack is the subject of few to none of those sources; she's merely namechecked, mostly as a provider of soundbite, within references whose subjects are other people or things. That is not the type of sourcing it takes to clear GNG — a person gets an article by being the subject of coverage about her, not by providing a fifteen-word quote in an article whose subject is Theresa May's legs. Bearcat (talk) 15:45, 13 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete - Unelected politician at the national level. She can get elected and then we can create the article. Otherwise, fails WP:GNG. Me-123567-Me (talk) 21:55, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep. Clearly sufficient sources to meet GNG (thanks Davey). --NSH001 (talk) 15:55, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment - Update the article to reflect the information, and improve the article, don't just sit them on this page, add them to the article. Sport and politics (talk) 08:55, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
 * - What did your last slave die of ?, You have arms and some sense/knowledge so do it yourself. – Davey 2010 Talk 18:18, 8 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep – Notable deputy leader of a main national political party who meets WP:POLITICIAN and WP:GNG. Also, if there are problems with the article then this can be addressed through normal editing not deletion, WP:SOFIXIT.
 * Sport and politics, you are not adding anything new when you respond to every keep contribution. We have seen your opinion, and your reasons. Tanbircdq (talk) 18:04, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
 * There is a distinct not getting how Wikipeidia works, be bold you have found the sources, you think they are notable, you should be adding them.Sport and politics (talk) 18:48, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Please also refrain from personal comments which may fall foul of No personal attacks policy. Sport and politics (talk) 18:51, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I've done my bit by not only finding the sources but also adding them here (in full), If anyone wants to add them then fine otherwise they can just sit here, Anyway point is sources have been found which confirms her notability so therefore now there's no reason to delete nor is there any valid reason to keep this AFD open any longer. – Davey 2010 Talk 19:03, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree with Davey. Please explain specifically exactly what personal comment may fall foul of WP:NPA policy? Tanbircdq (talk) 01:17, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
 * The phrase What did your last slave die of? and the fact is specifically directed at myself. This is the comment I take issue with and falls fouls of the policy. Sport and politics (talk) 12:32, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I take issue with you giving orders to others to add the sources to the article. As for your frivolous complaints about Davey's comment, go back and read your own comment about another editor not getting how Wikipedia works. That's a personal comment directed at a more experienced editor than yourself. I suggest you stop bludgeoning this process. Lepricavark (talk) 22:17, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Sorry hadn't seen the reply but I agree entirely with Lepricavark - You're essentially demanding I (or someone atleast) add the sources to the article when you're more than capable of doing it yourself, Also "What did your last slave die of?" isn't a personal attack nor does it come anywhere close - If you're so sensitive to remarks like this then this place isn't for you but that aside I would suggest you go and read WP:NPA & WP:CIVIL and I would suggest you stop wasting our time with silly AFDs like this one otherwise I'll happily have you blocked from this process altogether, Thanks. – Davey 2010 Talk 23:31, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Exemplo347 (talk) 13:58, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep sufficient coverage exists to demonstrate notability. Lepricavark (talk) 22:17, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep - Sufficient sourcing shown for a GNG pass. Carrite (talk) 02:38, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep Surprised this is even in discussion. Earnsthearthrob (talk) 16:13, 15 June 2017 (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.