Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jessie Joe Jacobs


 * 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.  bibliomaniac 1  5  18:39, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

Jessie Joe Jacobs

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Fails WP:NPOL, most of the news has been garnered during her nomination. Elected and appointed political figures at the national cabinet level are generally regarded as notable and not at the state level or city level, however if she wins a page can be created for her. For not it is WP:TOOSOON. Joanrivers (talk) 05:49, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 08:40, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 08:40, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 08:41, 30 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete. Being an as yet non-winning candidate in a future mayoral election is not grounds for a Wikipedia article in and of itself (and the fact that the coronapocalyse has already postponed the election by a full year doesn't help, either) — but this article is not demonstrating a credible reason why she would have cleared the notability bar independently of running for mayor, as it's too strongly dependent on a mix of primary sources and the type of purely local coverage that absolutely anybody who's active in local politics anywhere can always show. To be encyclopedically notable for any of this, she would have to show nationalizing coverage demonstrating that her notability expanded well beyond just Tees Valley alone. Obviously no prejudice against recreation next year if she wins, but nothing here is already enough today. Bearcat (talk) 17:43, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete. She is a candidate in a future mayoral election. Not enough good sources, mostly local coverage. If she wins, she can have an article. Lefcentreright  Talk  (plz ping) 18:27, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Note The original nominator of this AFD has been blocked as a possibly compromised account. Yunshui 雲 水 07:18, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep As the original author of this page before I duly considered whether or not Jacons met WP:NPOL before creation, as well as considering if she met the WP:GNG and concluded that she did so on both grounds. In the first instance, it is widely considered that the 2020 Tees Valley Mayoral Election will be a bellweather on the likelihood of the Conservative Party retaining its unprecedented gains behind the red wall in the 2019 snap General Election, giving the camapign and therefore the candidates a wider significance  . Secondly, Bearcat states that she does not have recognition independently of the mayoral campaign, yet disregards that she has been shortlisted for a number of national awards, long before standing for political office, including being nominated for and winning national recongition from the Bank of Scotland as Social Entrepreneur of the Year in 2009 . Finally, as Yunshui points out the original nominator of this AFD has been blocked as a possible compromised account, whose sole purpose seems to have been to nominate pages for deletion. Peterneal (talk) 23:06, 31 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Firstly, every single award that exists is not an automatic notability pass: the award itself has to be notable enough to pass WP:GNG before it's notable enough to make its winners or nominees notable for winning or being nominated for it. The list of awards that make people notable because award does not include (a) any award that can be sourced only to the awarding organization's self-published website or press releases about itself, because actual reliable source media coverage about the award is nonexistent, or (b) any award that can be sourced only to a single piece of "local person wins award" coverage in the person's local media, because consistent annual nationalized coverage about the award is not demonstrable. If you can't get the award over GNG as an award, then it isn't a notability-clinching award.
 * Secondly, it is not our mission, our job or even our responsibility to maintain campaign brochures for non-winning candidates, so nowhere in Wikipedia's notability standards for politicians are as yet unelected candidates exempted from having to pass NPOL just because somebody says the election has bellwether implications for wider political trends. Even if that statement is true, maintaining an article about the non-winning candidate does not actually serve the purpose of communicating or contextualizing that at all: it just amounts to a campaign brochure for an unelected candidate. If you want to establish that a non-winning candidate is important enough to be exempted from NPOL because of the "specialness" of her candidacy, what you actually have to do is imagine that she loses the election next year, then dies the next day so she never has another opportunity to accomplish anything more notable than running for mayor and losing, and then show a convincing reason why people will still need the article to exist in 2030 anyway. Our job is not to maintain an article about everybody who happens to be present in the current news cycle, it's to figure out what information people will still need decades from now — as a rule, people will need articles about holders of notable political offices, not candidates for them. Bearcat (talk) 13:56, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee //  have a ☕️ //  beans  // 07:07, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete a promotional campaign brochure which fails WP:NPOL. GSS &#x202F;&#128172; 18:21, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete: per the well stated reasoning of user:Bearcat. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Otr500 (talk) 02:14, 8 April 2020 (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.