Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anne Marie Waters


 * 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. (non-admin closure) Winged Blades Godric  13:54, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Anne Marie Waters

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Poorly written mess on a non-notable defeated political candidate. All coverage related to her extreme views when she was a candidate for office. No in-depth coverage in reliable or quality sources. Fails WP:BASIC, WP:ANYBIO and WP:NPOL. Furthermore, the article was created by an indefinitely blocked sockpuppeteer and political edit warrior, see Sockpuppet investigations/Timothycrice/Archive. AusLondonder (talk) 22:55, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. AusLondonder (talk) 23:01, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. AusLondonder (talk) 23:05, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. AusLondonder (talk) 23:05, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. AusLondonder (talk) 23:05, 13 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep - article appears neutral at present, has substantial coverage as focus of articles in independent sources, including one from only yesterday which isn't yet in the article, and this article by Raheem Kassam would also be a useful source to demonstrate her importance to the right-wing of UKIP. Warofdreams talk 23:45, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Breitbart is not a reliable source and the Pink News article purely discusses her candidacy for election. It does not go anywhere near significant, in-depth coverage. AusLondonder (talk) 11:02, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Breitbart is a reliable source for the views of its contributors, which is why it would be useful in this article. The Pink News article is entirely focused on her candidacy (clearly not just routine coverage of any candidate) and therefore contributes to evidence of notability. Warofdreams talk 21:39, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
 * i would think the contributors at WP:BLPN may disagree with you. Sources such as Breitbart are very rarely considered acceptable for BLPs. WP:NPOL states "...being...an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability, although 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'." AusLondonder (talk) 07:32, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm well aware of the guidelines, thanks, and how this article meets them. Warofdreams talk 14:46, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
 * The supplementary notability guidelines for politians say that only successful candidates satisfy the looser criteria for politicians as a matter of course. But those guidelines also point out that they don't preclude starting articles on failed politicians who measure up to GNG.  If Waters has already been covered well enough to measure up to the criteria of GNG, then you are misinterpreting NPOL.  Geo Swan (talk) 16:32, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep I've done what I can to re-organise and trim down the article. It was a complete mess previously. I think adequately demonstrates her general notability. Ralbegen (talk) 10:25, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete -- A failed (and controversial) political candidate. In view of the expressed intention to stand for UKIP-leadership, I might be prepared to await events for (say) three months.  Peterkingiron (talk) 17:31, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 04:03, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete/merge The clean-up is welcome and has improved the article significantly, but there's not enough to meet notability criteria. Content could perhaps be merged into Pegida UK. Bondegezou (talk) 15:06, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:39, 21 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep– seems to be a well-written and well-sourced neutral article; Waters seems to pass the notability criteria due to her involvement in Pegida UK and her current bid to become UKIP leader.  Chessrat ( talk, contributions ) 23:43, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment -- Nominator starts this nomination by asserting the article is a "Poorly written mess".  Being poorly written is not a criteria for article deletion!  I see an increasing number of nominators calling for the deletion of articles because they think they are poorly written.  I think it has to be spelled out to them that when the topic itself is notable, we address concerns that the article si poorly written in other ways.  We tag it for improvement.  We raise our concerns on the article's talk page, or on other fora.  Maybe we figure out who wrote the passages that concern us, and share that concern on the other contributor's talk page.  It is a violation of policy to call for the deletion of an article because we think it is poorly written.  So, don't do it.  Don't even think about doing it, unless the talk page shows a long history of sincere, good faith attempts to reach a consensus, and the article remains a mess because those good faith attempts failed.  Note: this is an extremely rare occurrence.  Geo Swan (talk) 16:11, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment -- Nominatior seems to be suggesting that this article should be deleted, in part, because it was started by an individual who was indefinitely blocked four months later.  However a diff between the last version edite by Timothycrice and the latest version shows that 34 other contributors worked on the article, since then.  That diff shows the article has largely been rewritten.  Problematic contributors can still have been capable of finding notable topics we weren't covering, and starting articles on them.   I have never heard of a policy or discussion that authorized the blanket deletion of all of the articles started by contributors who were found to be problematic.  If there have been rare instances where ARB of the WMF office have authorized this, I have never heard of them.  If nominator can't find a specific discussion authorizing the blanket deletion of all articles started by Timothycrice, then I would encourage them to strike out that part of their nomination.  Geo Swan (talk) 16:25, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment Nomination seems to be asserting that they could not find "in-depth coverage in reliable or quality sources." I am not a mind reader, but I am guessing that nominatior  is trying to suggest we can't have a biographical article on AusLondoner unless we cite sources that lay out the mundane milestones of her life, like where she was born, where she studied, if she was married, or reasonable equivalent, and had children.  If so, this is a serious misinterpretation of "in-depth coverage".  A nominator made the same mistake in Articles for deletion/Stephen Vladeck.  DGG's comment said, in part: "Of course biographic detail is nice, but unnecessary--a notable person is notable because of the work they do, not by virtue of being born. Even under the GNG do not need in depth coverage of the person's personal life, just of the aspects of his life that bring forth notability."  Geo Swan (talk) 16:55, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep -- as per my comments above, I found this to be a flawed and counterpolicy nomination, one that misinterpreted our policies and guidelines. I think we should be entitled to expect nominators to fully and fairly comply with WP:BEFORE.  The nomination merely describes Waters as a "failed candidate".  Woah!  Her party would not allow her to run as a candidate in 2016.  Surely being barred from running as a candidate is more notable than being allowed to run, and then losing?   The Independent wrote: "Ukip leader Paul Nuttall said the views espoused by Ms Waters, who appeared on far-right Swedish online platform Red Ice TV this month, made him feel “uncomfortable” and the party's national executive committee would be looking at her record later on Friday."   What this is, is International coverage.  Ms Waters is notable enough to be interviewed in foreign countries.  She has an International reputations, had one in 2016.  Nominator seemed to assert the consensus at WP:RSN was a blanket disallowal of the use of Breitbart.  No offense, but I didn't take this assertion at face value.  I found there is a long discussion going on at RSN, right now.  Reasonable people there are saying the same thing  said: "Breitbart is a reliable source for the views of its contributors".  Breitbart's writers have written about her on numerous occasions.    could you lay out your specific concerns about using Breitbart references in this article, at RSN?  Could you lay out specific concerns about each Breitbart article that covered Waters, on the article's talk page?   Even if we preclude the 2017 coverage, and all Breitbart coverage, this google news search tosses up coverage of Waters in multiple contexts:
 * 1) Donald Trump Jr. tweeted about Waters.
 * 2) * Donald Trump Jr. Is Tweeting Straight- Up White Nationalist Propaganda Now
 * 3) Waters was invited to be a debater, in a high-profile debate at Oxford, as to whether Islam is a religion of Peace
 * 4) * Debate: This House believes Islam is a religion of peace
 * 5) * What Islam-bashers can learn from The West Wing’s Aaron Sorkin
 * 6) Waters helped organize an event where partcipants were encouraged to draw a cartoon of Mohammed, an act that has triggered some of the most extreme muslim fundamentalists to violent acts
 * 7) * Mohamed cartoon exhibition coming to London in September, anti-Sharia group announces
 * 8) * Appropriating Tragedies to Promote Further Bigotry – the LGBT Stockton on Tees March
 * 9) * Charlie Hebdo's latest editorial identifies Muslims as the solution, not the problem - how is that Islamophobic?
 * 10) * 'I'm not radical, I speak the truth'
 * 11) * Prophet Mohammed cartoon exhibition cancelled over 'very real possibility people could be hurt or killed'
 * 12)  Organized an anti-muslim training site.
 * 13) * MPs call for 'anti-Muslim paramilitary manual' website to be investigated
 * 14)  A talk she gave, in London, stirred protest
 * 15) * “People will call me Islamophobic”: UKIP’s Waters
 * 16)  An undercover journalist followed her, and surreptiously recorded her, and claimed the recordings included "anti-Islamic hate speech"
 * 17) * Ukip MP candidate for Lewisham East, Anne-Marie Waters caught spouting anti-Islamic hate
 * So, keep. Geo Swan (talk) 17:42, 26 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep - article passes WP:GNG. Sure it needs improvement and expansion as well a perhaps a shift in tone but overall but that can all be improved upon and I would say the subject is by far notable enough for Wikipedia. Inter&#38;anthro (talk) 03:09, 28 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.