Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jessica Hammond (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. Essentially, the arguments for keeping (there is sufficient coverage to write an article) or deleting (the coverage only amounts to trivial passing mentions and can't be used to write anything of substance) are of about equal stature to each other and cancel each other out. For what it's worth, I did my own search for sources (in the hope I could break the logjam by !voting myself) and came away without any strong view one way or the other. So I think for now, No Consensus is the best option.

As a procedural note, the article I deleted in Articles for deletion/Jessica Hammond is not this person; this is the only AfD that has occurred for this subject. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  16:29, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

Jessica Hammond
AfDs for this article:


 * – ( View AfD View log )

This individual is a failed candidate for office, and does not meet WP:GNG and WP:NPOL. Lots of refs, but they are mostly focused around the elections themselves and not significant coverage of the subject. Aranya (talk) 05:16, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Aranya (talk) 05:16, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Aranya (talk) 05:16, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Aranya (talk) 05:16, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. Aranya (talk) 05:16, 22 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep I'll write what I wrote on the talk page:


 * The argument is made that she fails WP:NPOL because she was unelected. I believe you can still meet the notability criteria with significant media coverage, even if unelected.


 * It is also argued that all references being about the election or post-election process cause the article to fail WP:GNG.


 * My first reason being I disagree that all articles are about the election process. There is a section on her personal life which refers to her attempts at stand up comedy and multiple pieces on her children’s allergies, (second article) for example.


 * My second reason is she is a political candidate who has coverage consistently which is more than a trivial mentions.


 * I’ll name several:
 * https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/100003864/extop-candidates-start-new-political-action-group
 * https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/99839970/gareth-morgan-wont-lead-top-into-2020-election
 * https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/121806722/the-battle-for-hriu-top-is-back-and-its-hoping-to-spoil-a-fight-between-labour-and-national
 * https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/politics/election-2020-all-or-nothing-in-ohariu-electorate-as-three-mps-contest-seat/HATLYY43YA2QPR7ZIFOSVCX42Q/
 * https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/97007632/election-2017-minor-party-and-independent-electoral-candidate-profiles
 * https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/96332869/from-bob-dylan-to-waiting-lists-the-times-they-are-achangin-in-ohariu
 * https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/top-promises-gst-returns-for-councils-to-help-plug-infrastructure-deficit/FTEGZTO7NMBJ5K3GUAQNA56GNI/
 * https://www.newsroom.co.nz/page/from-the-frontlines-jlr-bails-on-botany-1
 * https://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PO2010/S00161/equality-network-lifts-tops-score-on-their-party-scorecard.htm
 * https://www.newsroom.co.nz/page/will-top-turn-the-worm
 * https://www.newsroom.co.nz/page/a-four-way-race-in-nzs-thinking-electorate
 * https://www.nzherald.co.nz/video/jessica-hammond-talks-about-her-daughters-severe-allergies/TCK3BY42OD6BO6GYKJFMCTU23Q/
 * https://thespinoff.co.nz/tv/13-07-2019/the-people-inspired-by-extremely-cool-television-to-do-extremely-cool-things/
 * https://thespinoff.co.nz/society/21-02-2018/a-meal-out-could-kill-my-husband-why-do-so-few-restaurants-seem-to-care/
 * https://www.stuff.co.nz/life-style/homed/renting/122884216/calls-for-rent-control-as-renters-bid-farewell-to-governments-rent-freeze-with-cake
 * https://www.stuff.co.nz/business/124442022/family-outraged-82yearold-wheelchair-user-sold-2k-treadmill


 * New Zealand's national news station 1 News covered Ohariu and deemed her worthy of interviewing alongside the National, Labour, and New Zealand First candidates. This excludes the 6/10 other candidates running in Ohariu in 2020. It can be found here


 * I also want to add The Opportunities Party specifically poured resources into her campaign as they saw it as the only seat they can win, (article). She has won third place in Ohariu twice, beating the Green Party, which was a surprise for many given how much larger the Green Party (226,757 votes in 2020) is to The Opportunities Party. (43,449 votes in 2020).


 * Most local political candidates in New Zealand, including most of her competitors, only have trivial mentions, or barely any mentions about them at all, but she has a consistent pattern of being well-covered both about her political campaign but also events in her private life, and likely will continue to if she runs again, so I believe it displays notability.


 * Because of these reasons, I'd say I object to deletion. Nexus000 (talk) 08:51, 22 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete Fails general notability. The articles given are typical of interesting failed MP campaigns. The allergy and wheelchair story are trivial mentions eg "When Jean-Pierre Hammond’s daughter, Jessica Hammond, found out her 82-year-old father, who uses a wheelchair and lives in a rest home hospital, had been sold a treadmill that retails for more than $2000, she was outraged." Dushan Jugum (talk) 06:09, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment If this page was set for deletion after another AfD in March this year why are we still debating it? Genuine question, this could be an important part of the process I am missing. Dushan Jugum (talk) 06:19, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
 * The first discussion was over a different person who merely happened to have the same name, so once it was deleted this person got moved to the current title since it was no longer necessary to disambiguate her. Bearcat (talk) 15:18, 23 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Comment Dushan added "Removed my delete vote. Regardless of nit picking, Wikipedia is better with this article." to the edit summary when removing his delete vote. Nexus000 (talk) 21:59, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete. The existence of some campaign coverage is not in and of itself a reason to deem a candidate as passing WP:GNG in lieu of having to pass WP:NPOL — every candidate in every election everywhere can always show some evidence of campaign coverage, so if that were how it worked then every candidate would pass GNG and NPOL itself would be meaningless. Rather, to get a candidate treated as a special case, she needs to pass one of two other tests: either (a) you can demonstrate that she already had preexisting notability for other reasons that would already have gotten her an article anyway (e.g. Cynthia Nixon), or (b) you can demonstrate a credible reason why her candidacy should be treated as much, much more special than everybody else's candidacies, in some way that would pass the ten year test for enduring significance (e.g. Christine O'Donnell). Neither of those are in evidence here. GNG is not just "count the footnotes and keep anybody who happens to pass an arbitrary number" — GNG tests for a variety of other factors, including whether the context of what the person is getting covered for would be expected to get them into an encyclopedia or not. Bearcat (talk) 15:18, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete I'm not convinced any of the coverage demonstrated above actually demonstrates notability - she was a failed candidate and the media reports reflect that, and she's not otherwise notable. SportingFlyer  T · C  21:14, 26 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep - Seems like plenty of independent coverage to me. None of the sources seemed particularly deep, but are otherwise substantive, independent, and focused on Hammond's actions. I didn't click through all of the sources; are any of them full, dedicated profiles of her campaign(s)? Suriname0 (talk) 03:30, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I could not find any, but then I would expect anyone running for MP would have a decent bio written somewhere, maybe a local paper. It would not take much to change my mind from delete. Dushan Jugum (talk) 03:34, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
 * It is very rare for us to keep articles on failed candidates. We typically discount any articles written about campaigns as coverage that anyone would get, i.e. on NOTNEWS grounds. It's not impossible, but you have to show coverage above and beyond a normal campaign. Hammond is very far away from that threshold at the moment. SportingFlyer  T · C  12:28, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗  plicit  05:40, 30 June 2021 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep. Passes GNG. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 13:56, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep, the wide range of sources show that she's notable as a community activist as much as she is a political candidate.- gadfium 18:53, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 19:03, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment - relisted following DRV decision here: Deletion_review/Log/2021_October_20 &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 19:03, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Weak Delete although she's close to meeting GNG as an activist, I don't quite think she's there yet. The bulk of GNG is NOTNEWS/ONEEVENT territory in that it stemmed from her failed candidacy, and consensus has been that coverage around the campaigns isn't suitable if they were not otherwise notable. Star   Mississippi  19:05, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Weak Delete The subject fails WP:NPOL as a candidate. The subject is featured in several articles about her comedy, playwriting, and (to a degree) her activism. What we have is an interesting person who is mentioned with some regularity by New Zealand press, does not pass any SNG, and an article that focuses primarily about her failed political campaigns. --Enos733 (talk) 17:31, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete She is not a politican and doesn't make WP:NPOL so that is out. I don't see the lady as an activist in the tradional sense, suffering for her craft, e.g. where is the coverage when the elections are not being held, or she going around polling. There is a lot of PR in the list above, typical of somebody who has been selected, is on the election list and needs to stay relevant, so there is a significant PR spend to keep them in the news. And obviously stay relevent. So she is not politician yet, or an activist in the true sense. She is also a playwright. Where is the plays, and where is the reviews? No mention in the article. In the first six references, what coverage is there, is set piece PR, profiles and interviews. If she gets elected, she will get an article, but not now.   scope_creep Talk  13:15, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete. No in-depth coverage in secondary sources. None of the potentially relevant SNG criteria appear to be met. — Alalch Emis (talk) 15:47, 24 October 2021 (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.