Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ann Brickley


 * 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. Sarahj2107 (talk) 07:46, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Ann Brickley
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Ann Brickley is no longer a public figure Amandasm4 (talk) 03:10, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Articles for deletion/Log/2016 May 31.  —cyberbot I   Talk to my owner :Online 03:33, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment - I don't believe that current status as a public figure is one of our notability criterions. If someone WAS a public figure, than for wikipedia's purposes, they always are.  So I find Amandasm4's argument completely irrelevant.  That said, I'm currently on the fence about whether political candidates for local districts are sufficiently notable.  I'm not going to say that they are notable during the campaign, and then not notable if they lose and leave politics behind them forever.  For consistency, either a local politician is only notable if they win, OR they are permanently notable.  Obviously, candidates for larger political positions are notable... serious US presidential candidates, for instance, should all have articles (and permanently so, regardless of whether they retreat from public life later on).  Small town sherrif positions probably should not have mere candidates listed as notable.  So clearly there's a gradient... I'm just not sure where to draw the line.  Governors?  Senators?  Representatives?  A US Rep is still national, after all, but not as big as a senator. I'll withold a !vote for now, as I want to hear more opinions first.  But please consider the above. Fieari (talk) 06:20, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
 * That's the wrong way to think about things. This article is a biography.  The rules about sourcing apply very strictly.  So the only question is whether the primary notability criterion applies: whether this person's life and works have been documented in depth in multiple published sources by people independent of the subject with good reputations for fact checking and accuracy.  What class of person this person belongs to is entirely irrelevant.  This is a biography of a living person. Uncle G (talk) 09:50, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Connecticut-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 09:43, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 09:43, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 09:43, 31 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Unelected candidates for office are not considered notable just for being candidates: if you cannot demonstrate and properly source a credible reason why they have enough preexisting notability to have qualified for a Wikipedia article independently of their candidacy, then they must win the seat to become notable because of their political activity per se. That's what Fieari's missing: candidates for president, or for statewide offices like governor or the US Senate, may very well already have enough preexisting notability — even in the uniquely bloated Republican presidential primaries this year, frex, every single candidate either had already held another NPOL-passing office, or was already prominent enough in business or medicine to get over those inclusion bars regardless of their non-passage of NPOL. But being a candidate for president is still no automatic guarantee of a Wikipedia article — we do not necessarily maintain an article about every tinfoil hat candidate from Podunk, Utah who's ever declared themselves a candidate for president, but restrict ourselves only to the ones who can be shown to pass WP:GNG for something. And candidates in individual US House districts are significantly less likely to have the necessary level of preexisting notability — it's still not entirely impossible, but it's less common than it is in the gubernatorial, senatorial or presidential races. So no, candidates don't get automatic inclusion freebies because candidate — they get articles if either (a) they win, or (b) the article is sourced well enough to show that they were already notable enough for articles anyway. But neither of those applies here. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 07:32, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Weak delete: I believe that  is correct that WP:NPOL requires people to actually win their race or have additional notability factors.  Here, I see insufficient outside notability factors.  That said, I would argue that being a major party's nominee for federal office is still notable all by itself, but that is a bigger issue than this article.   Montanabw (talk)  05:36, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete Whilst her notability is lasting and does not disappear if she ceases active political activity, she simply does not have enough notability. I strongly disagree with the above contention by that anyone standing for an individual constituency in a national election from a major party is notable. Would that simply apply to the United States? Or would it apply for the UK? India with it's biggest democratic election? What about WP:NPOL? AusLondonder (talk) 09:25, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Plus Canada, Australia, France, Germany, Poland, Mexico and every other multiparty democracy in the entire world. It would get completely unsustainable and unmaintanable fast. Bearcat (talk) 14:05, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I am thinking of, " 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 of the article." In a federal system such as that of the USA, most major Congressional level candidates easily meet GNG for coverage.  Where nations do not have state-level government, but merely a huge national assembly, I can see the problem, but essentially, instead of having an endless debate over the issue, I think it may need to be sorted out at NPOL or WP:POLOUTCOMES with a nation-by-nation determination, as determined by the editors in that nation or familiar with its politics: For example, the Greens in nations with a strong two or at the most three party system, such as Australia, the UK, or the USA are not "major" parties in any way, but in Austria, for example, they now are.  In nations with massive multiparty systems and coalition governments, such as Israel or perhaps India, I can see the need for a determination of where the line is. One size definitely does not fit all.   Montanabw (talk)  17:49, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Let's take the example of the United Kingdom. The House of Commons has 650 members. Labour and the Conservatives combined won 86% of seats. But the Scottish National Party came first in Scotland and won 56 of 59 Scottish seats. On the other hand from 2010-2015 the Liberal Democrats were a part of the government and in 2010 won 57 seats. In Northern Ireland all seats were won by local parties. So how would we decide what parties were included? In addition, regional parliaments exist in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. We could soon have thousands of articles (often promotional) for each election. Coverage can almost always be found for major party candidates. In India a similar problem exists with different parties doing well in different states. AusLondonder (talk) 05:16, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
 * For the purposes of a legislative election, it would be a WP:CRYSTAL and WP:NOR violation to base the "major party" distinction on how much chance the party has or doesn't have of winning an election outright. WP:NPOV would essentially require us to define "major party" as any party that has ever held seats in the legislature at all — so by that token, while the Greens in the US wouldn't qualify, the Greens in Australia, the UK and Canada would. And notability is not inherited, so the Greens having won a presidential election in Austria doesn't transfer special status onto the party's parliamentary candidates above and beyond that which the party's elected parliamentarians have already collected for themselves. And then you get into the fact that upstart parties sometimes break through with a handful of seats, or form from a small caucus of existing legislators who cross the floor due to a political dispute — and thus now also qualify as "major" under the only purely objective definition we could actually apply. It's an ugly road we don't want to go down. Bearcat (talk) 17:43, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Even in the case of the US, the number of candidates for major parties greatly outnumbers those who have won elections, since figures like John Dingell faced 20+ opponants over their careers. The truly notable ones will generally have held office as a state house member or state senator, and thus are notable on holding some office, not merely for running for office. A rare exception is probably Mia Love, who even in her first run for congress which she lost got way more than routine coverage. On the other hand I created the article back after she was elected mayor of Saratoga Springs, Utah and no one challenged it then, and with her now being a member of congress whether the article on her should have been created as early as it was is merely an academic question.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:19, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Your example, is a good reason to consider US Candidates at least potentially notable. IN contrast, the position of {[u|Bearcat}} represents a consensus that should be reexamined for US Politicians.  The points raised by  show why we can't create a "one size fits all" rule and perhaps NPOL should be spun off into a separate page that outlines the general rule and then the rules for individual nations where a consensus exists.   Montanabw (talk)  00:18, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
 * His example, in fact, is completely consistent with the rule that already exists now: a unelected candidate can, in certain circumstances, already have preexisting notability for other things prior to their candidacy (e.g. if a person has already held another NPOL-passing role and then falls short in their run for a different office, then they're kept on the basis of office #1 rather than being deleted as a failed candidate for office #2), or can, in certain circumstances, "explode" onto the national radar with a volume and depth of coverage that more closely resembles the kind of coverage usually afforded to incumbent officeholders than the kind normally afforded to candidates (Christine O'Donnell is another example of that; the coverage turned into such a national media frenzy that she easily passes WP:GNG regardless of the fact that she technically still fails NPOL.) But Mia Love or Christine O'Donnell don't constitute proof that the rule itself needs to be rewritten to grant automatic notability to all candidates, or that the US needs a special US-exclusive exemption from the rule that would apply in any other country — they constitute proof that the rule is already working the way it should, because the rule already does allow for situations like theirs to get through the "more notable than the norm" gauntlet. Bearcat (talk) 14:12, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I totally oppose some kind of US exemption from the rules. We are an international encyclopedia that should cover topics with genuine lasting significance not cable channel election hype. WP:GEOBIAS is relevant here. Indian candidates contest larger constituencies in colourful and closely fought contests. If American candidates who lose are notable why not them? AusLondonder (talk) 16:06, 6 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete: unelected political candidate & insufficiently notable businessperson. Quis separabit?  20:32, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Strong delete The consensus is that failed candidates for the US House of Representatives are not notable for such, and Brickley has no other claim to notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:13, 5 June 2016 (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.