Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Carole Ford


 * 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. T. Canens (talk) 10:39, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Carole Ford

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

WP:N. Doesn't meet WP:POLITICIAN. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 22:42, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 16:41, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 16:41, 15 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment: This article was created in the period leading up to the 2016 Scottish Parliament election, regarding which the subject does not meet WP:POLITICIAN as an unsuccessful candidate. Regarding other career activities, authorship of textbooks and working as a school head teacher are not in themselves grounds for notability. On the other hand, the reference which I added does describe her as "a leading figure in the profession" (teaching); it may be arguable that such a description plus the Union position, appointment as a lay person to a Law Society body, etc. accumulate to some basic level of notability? AllyD (talk) 17:04, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep Plenty of sources covering her status as a prominent educationalist, e.g. president of School Leaders Scotland. Andrew D. (talk) 21:48, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete, on the basis the article is supported almost entirely by non-independent sources. The news coverage of Ford consists largely of quotes and opinions from her, not substantive coverage about her. As AllyD points out, the article was likely written as a promo piece for her election candidature. Sionk (talk) 22:58, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete Some sources mentioning her, but no sources covering her in depth. Ramaksoud2000 (Talk to me) 00:57, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete does not meet inclusion criteria for a politician.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:17, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:TNT. As written, this is based far too strongly on primary sources rather than reliable ones, and even the reliable ones aren't cutting the mustard all that effectively. For instance, she's the bylined author of every last citation here to The Scotsman, not their subject — but a person gets a Wikipedia article by being the subject of media coverage written by other people, not by being the author of media coverage about other things. No prejudice against recreation in the future if somebody can source it properly. Bearcat (talk) 19:25, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep. President of a significant trade union. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:28, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Is there a specific exemption to GNG that you are referring to? Ramaksoud2000 (Talk to me) 00:59, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
 * No, that's opinion and common sense. But in any case, there's plenty of coverage of her cited in the article. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:21, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I've tried to write articles on trade union secretaries and presidents and I find that presidents are much harder to justify, because president is a presiding role (chairing conferences etc.) rather than the public face of the union (which General Secretaries generally are). It's debateable whether School Leaders Scotland is a significant union anyway. Sionk (talk) 15:11, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   21:43, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete in this current state, does not assert notability. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cylon B (talk • contribs) 08:58, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:POLOUTCOMES. Most of the coverage is either quotes by the subject or a brief mention in the context of an election. There are hardly any articles focusing on the subject themselves. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 15:00, 25 December 2016 (UTC)
 * WP:GNG states, "Significant coverage...does not need to be the main topic of the source material." Unscintillating (talk) 03:59, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
 * But she isn't even a secondary topic of the coverage. She has written some stuff for newspapers. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 17:38, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
 * That's not what the OP said, and what I've quoted is what WP:GNG says. Unscintillating (talk) 19:19, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
 * "Significant coverage" does, however, have to be more than just a single glancing namecheck of her existence as a giver of soundbite in, or the bylined author of, an article about something or somebody else, Bearcat (talk) 17:54, 30 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep Multiple public roles as well an author, including cites in Google scholar, mean that our readers will want the reliably sourced information that is available on this topic for a long time to come.  Unscintillating (talk) 03:59, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
 * There's reliably sourced information available on this topic somewhere? Great, then add it to the article, because the article as written is stacked on primary sources and glancing namechecks of her existence in media coverage that isn't about her, not on any sourcing that would satisfy WP:GNG. Bearcat (talk) 04:28, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  MBisanz  talk 00:39, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Ramaksoud2000 (Talk to me)  00:40, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Ramaksoud2000 (Talk to me)  00:40, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:18, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:18, 5 January 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.