Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Amna Ahmad


 * 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 22:54, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Amna Ahmad

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Fails WP:NPOL. Hasn't received much coverage from what I can find. bojo &#124;  talk  12:58, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 13:51, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions.   CAPTAIN RAJU  (✉)   18:05, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions.   CAPTAIN RAJU  (✉)   18:06, 21 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Speedy delete A7 - political campaign advert. Subject clearly fails WP:POLITICIAN. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 21:39, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete. As always, as yet unelected candidates for office do not get Wikipedia articles just for being candidates — if you cannot demonstrate and properly source that she was already notable enough for an article for some other reason before becoming a candidate, then she has to win the election, not just run in it, to get an article because election. So no prejudice against recreation on or after June 8 if she wins, but nothing here gets her an article today. Bearcat (talk) 04:42, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete If she wins or does something independently notable, then sure. Article fails as it is right now, though. South Nashua (talk) 17:42, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:16, 24 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete – virtually all/most of the general adult population can become election candidates for constituencies in the UK – whether they actually get elected is another matter. Keeping this in mind I would have chosen to tag A7. She holds no office as of yet and therefore fails WP:NPOL. It is as Kudpung noted, essentially part of a political campaign as well as (evidently) being an unreferenced BLP. — Iambic Pentameter talk / contribs 15:46, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
 * If we are considering such background detail which is not in the article, then standing for a major party in a winnable marginal seat (her party held it for 18 years until 2015) *is* a claim of notability disqualifying it from A7. While everyone can stand, the competition for winnable seats (as opposed to being a paper candidate) is fierce. Valenciano (talk) 07:23, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Surely any party and candidate should be treated equally here so attempting to assess their likelihood of winning based on which party they may stand for is simply unfair. The notability is in the office she holds not the party she represents. My point was based on the technical aspect that anyone (regardless of their party) has a chance to get elected. This, as has been proved before, isn't impossible, see Martin Bell, for example. — Iambic Pentameter talk / contribs 12:23, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I'd disagree that "anyone can get elected" has been proved before. In the 72 years since World War 2 I believe only two independent candidates have got elected: Bell, who Labour and Lib Dems stood down in favour of, and Taylor, who LibDems stood down in favour of. There were also the cases of Taverne, Davies and the two in Blaenau Gwent. 3 of the latter were former elected Labour members and the last was the agent of one of them, ie a prominent former member of a political party. Independents not backed by or associated with the major parties haven't been elected since 1945. So "anyone can stand" therefore we should A7 all, doesn't hold. The bar for being selected by a major political party, especially in a seat they recently held, is significantly higher than just paying the 500 quid and standing as a no-hoper.


 * In this case most relevant is WP:CCOS : "a claim of significance need not pass any of the general or specialized notability guidelines." So just failing WP:POLITICIAN is not an A7 case.
 * Further: "Any statement which plausibly indicates that additional research (possibly offline, possibly in specialized sources) has a reasonable chance of demonstrating notability is a claim of significance." Parliamentary candidate makes it plausible that someone in the media will have taken notice of someone, so I'm with Bearcat that they're better here. Being selected for a major party in a winnable seat is a claim of significance, however weak, which is worth further investigation at AFD. Valenciano (talk) 23:37, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Just to be clear, non-winning candidates for political office can and should be taken to AFD, but are not eligible for speedy A7 — the standard required to qualify for speedy is that the article isn't making any claim of notability at all. Even a weak claim of notability that would never actually survive a prod or an AFD, such as what we have here, is still enough of a claim of notability to forestall speedy. There has to be no claim of notability even being made in the first place for speedyability to kick in — if there is a claim of notability being made, speedy doesn't apply regardless of how weak the claim may be. Bearcat (talk) 13:37, 27 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete as Too Soon (if she wins). Ottherwise, lack of notability is evident. Burroughs&#39;10 (talk) 04:57, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete she has a good chance of winning, but is not currently notable and we can always recreate the article in June if she is successful. Valenciano (talk) 07:23, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Concur with Valenciano. Article after the fact, not before. Burroughs&#39;10 (talk) 16:28, 27 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete Technically this should have been nominated for speedy deltion for lacking any sources, but if the article is truthful and there has been press coverage, that might have been a waste of time. Clearly Ahmad will only be notable if elected. I have to admit I am not familiar enough with British politics to know if Ahmad is an official party canddiate (like winning a nomination in the US) or just wants to be. Actually I am not sure if this is a result of my unfamiliarity with British politics, or the lack of substance in the article. Even if she was, that would not make her notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:15, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I have to say this is one of the fluffiest, most meaningless articles I have ever come across. My search for sources has yet to produce even one reliable source. I found this blog that allows her to state, campaign literature fashion, her views on issues of affordable housing (buzz word alert), etc. My search is showing up more people with this name in New York City, Sacramento, California and Sugarland, Texas. I did eventually come across  which shows she was trounced and came in 3rd place in 2015 in this same constituency. Defeats like this are not the thing notability is made of. She may turn things around and get elected this time, but until that happens she is not notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:28, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment The fact that the article was created by a person with the account name "David Archer - Liberal Democrat" makes this even more suspicious as an attempt to use Wikipedia to promote a political candidate. The fluffy langue at the end of the article seems to be written with the intent to promote the candidate as much as possible.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:32, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment Someone should maybe try and give Mr. Archer a lesson on how to create Wikipedia articles and proper sourcing. For example he says "all of this will unfold once I have information from the Amna herself". Wikipedia articles are not meant to be PR forums for individuals to publicize themselves in the most positive light.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:35, 28 April 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.