Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jessica Asato (2nd nomination)


 * 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   no consensus. (NPASR) (non-admin closure)  Rcsprinter123    (say)  @ 21:56, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Jessica Asato
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Non-notable politician. Previously deleted at AfD for the same reason. andy (talk) 08:38, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Asato is considered a notable politician by local (in both Norfolk and London) and national newspapers. She is described as a leading Blairite and was until recently the director of Progress, the leading Blairite think tank.Rathfelder (talk) 09:27, 1 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep She is the vice-chair of the Electoral Reform Society, a long established and well known body, that really ought to be lead sentence of the article.
 * Comment: That's a one-year elected position as part of a council of 15 people with no executive authority. I see no evidence that she passes WP:POLITICIAN. andy (talk) 15:50, 1 December 2014 (UTC)


 * "Major local political figures who has received significant press coverage". I've referenced a dozen articles in various journals. There are plenty more.Rathfelder (talk) 19:12, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:06, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:06, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Michig (talk) 07:38, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete - Having glanced at the references, I'm not seeing any direct coverage in RS. NickCT (talk) 13:53, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: I've now removed the reference to a Guardian Diary piece that was quoted as comparing her and her late husband to Burton and Taylor, because it also described them as "nauseating". I really doubt if this establishes notability! andy (talk) 14:47, 8 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Borderline keep She's been doing not very glamorous work, paying her dues, but despite that has received a surprising amount of media coverage as a spokesperson for this or that. A weak keep, on the basis of the coverage. There is no lack of sources. – Margin1522 (talk) 17:46, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment: I think you need to look carefully at those sources. Almost all of them are either her local paper or in-house Labour sources, and many relate to the fact that she is about to be / is now / is no longer a candidate, something which is not notable per se. andy (talk) 17:05, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
 * - Agree with andy. There is no lack of mentions. But those mentions are in really really low quality sources. I think you'd have to be feeling really generous to call that a keep. NickCT (talk) 18:02, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree, those are in-house Labour sources (arguably including the Guardian, where she has published a number of articles under her own name). You'd have to be a political junkie to be interested in some of them. So I wouldn't object if the article were deleted and then recreated if she won the election. I do think the criteria give too much weight to elected politicians. There are many actors in modern politics. If she were swept into office by external factors like the economy, she would still be the same person. – Margin1522 (talk) 18:42, 10 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment about sources. Of the sources in the article, I'd only count LabourList and Progress as remotely "in-house Labour" (in that while neither has any official connection with the Labour Party, both are definitely targetted at Labour Party members - and in that sense, Iain Dale probably counts as "in-house Conservative") and the Islington Tribune as unequivocally local. However, I would rather agree that, while the Eastern Daily Press is definitely a regional paper, this is somewhat compromised in this case as Norwich itself (where it is published) has only two parliamentary constituencies and Asato is standing in one of them; and that, while the Guardian, the Independent and the Evening Standard are all reliable sources, we generally do not accept contributor CVs (one of the Guardian citations) as contributing to notability, and the other pieces are all fairly insubstantial (the other Guardian one being a short piece from an only semi-serious gossip column, and the other two both being one-paragraph items in lists of people "you probably haven't heard of yet but may well hear of in future"). Having said all that, I'm neutral on the main question - Asato is definitely more notable than most aspiring Labour candidates, and I've been aware of her for at least ten years (but then I'm a Labour Party member). If we knew of just one full-scale profile from almost any national British paper, I'd be inclined to take it, with what is already here, as establishing notability - and I'd be unsurprised if one or more turned out to exist. However, User:Rathfelder has obviously searched fairly hard for sources already, so I'm not holding my breath on this. PWilkinson (talk) 19:15, 14 December 2014 (UTC)


 * It appears that the criteria for inclusion discriminate against candidates. There are plenty of wikipedia articles about people less notable than her. This article is not about her candidature.   I don't see why the fact that she writes articles for the Guardian should be held against her.  She seems to have been treated as a spokesperson for Blairism for the last ten years.  In that capacity she is noteworthy and will still be noteworthy even if not elected.  Surely that is the reason for the rule about candidates. If they aren't elected will they ever be seen again?  If not then they aren't noteable.Rathfelder (talk) 21:18, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 12:14, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

There is no Wikipedia policy ruling out local newspapers as reliable sources, is there?Rathfelder (talk) 13:33, 21 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Can we please conclude this debate? The birth of her baby seems to be considered noteworthy by the Daily Telegraph.  That is not a Labour source.Rathfelder (talk) 14:53, 24 December 2014 (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.