Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jill Ovens


 * 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__EXPECTED_UNCONNECTED_PAGE__. Hey man im josh (talk) 21:54, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

Post-close close explanation: There's been 23 more references added, a number of which are considered reliable sources (WP:HEY). Based on the depth of coverage in the sources, and the number and quality of sources present, there's enough WP:SIGCOV to meet WP:GNG. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:34, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

Jill Ovens
AfDs for this article:


 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Fails WP:GNG. Google search gives only party website. Only RS, non-primary source, non-blog source, non-passing source, and non-personal political publication (response to a public consultation/parties she is or was a member of), coverage is. PicturePerfect666 (talk) 20:48, 1 November 2023 (UTC
 * Note: I'm not sure how the "find sources" links went wrong but I've fixed them. --DanielRigal (talk) 21:14, 1 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. PicturePerfect666 (talk) 21:20, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. PicturePerfect666 (talk) 21:20, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. PicturePerfect666 (talk) 21:20, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Discrimination-related deletion discussions. PicturePerfect666 (talk) 21:20, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. PicturePerfect666 (talk) 21:20, 1 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Weak keep There is fairly sustained but low level coverage of her in the Google News hits. Most of it dates to her time as a more mainstream political figure, before the weird anti-trans stuff kicked off. If kept, I recommend keeping a very close eye on the article in the run up to the by-election to make sure that the article is not used either to promote or attack her. --DanielRigal (talk) 21:26, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
 * It should be noted that the subject of the article posted this about her article.
 * Additionally the lowest of low level coverage I saw was minimal and incidental with her being an also part of the articles, like being quoted as part of a mass of quoted people, or being in a list of also ran fringe candidates. If the article can be improved to meet GNG then fine I will withdraw the nomination but I don't se how it gets over the line of GNG. most of the articles I find are blogs, the union/political party she was/is a member of, and press release repost sites (Scoop for example). Which does not get anywhere near GNG. PicturePerfect666 (talk) 21:42, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Let's not take any notice of what she thinks of the article or of Wikipedia. She is either notable or she isn't. Our content is either neutral and accurate or it isn't. Her opinions don't matter here. It is different when a fairly private person, who has been dragged into the limelight, requests not to have an article about themself. That is is something we might look favourably on if the notability is low enough but she is the leader of a political party so that's not the case here. DanielRigal (talk) 22:48, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Simply being a leader of a political party does not confer automatic notability, if that were the case they there would be an endless number of nobodies who set up protest parties or vanity parties who would be 'notable'. The party itself may be notable, but that has no bearing on if the party officials are notable at this low level of single issue fringe party on the extreme-extremities of the spectrum where the Overton Window is on a different planet. PicturePerfect666 (talk) 01:07, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Sorry for not being clear. That wasn't my argument. As you say, the requirement to actually demonstrate notability remains. My point was that anybody who puts themselves forward as a public figure can't moan if they get a Wikipedia article, and they don't like it, in the same way that a more private person might sometimes be justified in doing. All I was saying is that we don't need to take any notice of her complaints about the article (beyond checking that any disputed factual claims are correct, of course). DanielRigal (talk) 14:24, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
 * @PicturePerfect666 I just followed that link and "Whoops, that page is gone". I don't suppose there's an archived version somewhere? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:13, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Nevermind, this works atm. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:18, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Here is an archived version of the page PicturePerfect666 (talk) 15:23, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep - adequate coverage for the biography of a notable perennial candidate, and one-time president and [co-]leader of a significant national party (measuring significance by the fact they elected multiple candidates in multiple elections, though none under her leadership). The article will be strengthened if Articles for deletion/Women's Rights Party results in a merge, which seems at least possible at this point. I at least think this discussion is premature while the other discussion is ongoing. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 22:03, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Where are these sources to convey that the candidate gets over GNG threshold. You are just saying the person is a notable perennial candidate. The sources don't seem to back that. Also being a "one-time president and [co-]leader of a significant national party" that does not convey automatic notability. The party may be notable but party officials are not automatically notable. PicturePerfect666 (talk) 01:00, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Merging that here would normally have no effect on the notability of this topic, why do you say that it would strengthen the notability argument? Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 17:13, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Not notability, necessarily. I meant that these two topics are pretty closely intertwined, and covering them broadly in one place would make more sense than separate narrow coverage. It's pretty common for us to cover a politician's vanity or single-issue ventures within their biographies instead of in separate articles. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 17:27, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
 * So if there's no impact on the notability either way why would we want to postpone this discussion? Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 17:48, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Because they are separate discussions which each impact the outcome of the other. The party AFD was at the time leaning quite strongly towards merging the content into this article, which would be moot if consensus was that Ovens shouldn't have a bio in the first place. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 19:43, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
 * How would the outcome of that discussion impact this one? Such a merge would be moot, but thats on those arguing to merge two non-notable pages together without establishing that one of them is notable not on anyone else. Thats just irresponsible. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 00:50, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions.  WC  Quidditch   ☎   ✎  22:31, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Very weak keep - Unlike the party, the person does produce mentions from other people when you google it. I don't think that the sources currently in the article reaches GNG or is at most quite borderline, and there are definitely some primary sources that need cleaning up, but IMO we should err on the side of inclusion. Also agree with Ivanvector that this should wait until the party AfD finishes. I would advocate no prejudice to reopening afterwards however. Fermiboson (talk) 00:09, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Striking vote after reviewing some of the comments below. Fermiboson (talk) 12:34, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Why should inclusion be erred on? PicturePerfect666 (talk) 01:09, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
 * When it comes to BLPs we've always erred on the side of exclusion (both when it comes to content and when it comes to articles), why should this case be different? Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 18:45, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep There’s enough there to achieve GNG. She suffers from the fact that her most notable period as co-leader of the Alliance is too long ago for any print media other than The New Zealand Herald still being online. Here is a source that shows how long she’s been around. When I am back at a laptop I shall have a more in-depth look.  Schwede 66  13:51, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I look forward to seeing the article expanded. At the moment it is just a lot of 'she is notable being said' yet I cannot see how she gets over the threshold. A minor politicial party leader a leader of a trade union, which is not notable in and of itself to be on Wikipedia, never been elected to any office despite being the most nuisance of perennial candidates and now shouting from the fringes with a vanity party to push bigotry. I know hundreds of similar people who do not get on wikipedia for doing that. She has to actually have genuine notability to be on Wikipedia. I look forward to the expansions. PicturePerfect666 (talk) 14:24, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Dr, who is a sociologist at the University of Auckland, wrote his dissertation at the New School in New York about the Alliance. The dissertation covers the period from September 11 attacks in 2001 to the 2005 party conference in Christchurch where Jill Ovens and Paul Piesse received the top two list spots (page 184). As that period captures the time that Ovens was co-leader of the Alliance, there is quite a bit about her in that thesis.  Schwede 66  03:14, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Dissertations are borderline sources which generally do not count towards notability... Its nice that it exists and its probably borderline usable, but it doesn't do much for us here. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 17:15, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Nominators note - Can the people who have !voted to keep please do better than the Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions - can there please be some significant evidence to back up the claims this person is actually notable. Currently, it all seems to be the opinion that a few blogs and one mention reliable sources and some passing mentions and her self-promotion seem to get her to be notable. If that were the case Wikipedia would have a bar so low anyone, literally anyone who ever got in a newspaper and wrote their opinion on the internet would be included on Wikipedia. This is not a ballot for voting as to if the person is notable in the opinion of editors...it is a discussion on if the individual is notable enough to remain on Wikipedia. So far GNG is not being passed and no one has disputed that so far. PicturePerfect666 (talk) 14:33, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Strong delete. I may have spent a little too much time on this since I saw this on VPP earlier today, but I believe that the subject fails, by a significant margin, the basic criteria for the notability of biographical topics (WP:BASIC) and GNG. Additionally, there does not appear to be evidence in reliable sources for any of the additional criteria (ANYBIO, NPOL, AUTHOR, etc). The routineness of coverage of failed political candidates for their candidacy is considered, but not a substantial factor. I base my analysis primarily on, but not limited to, the following sources: Alpha3031 (t • c) 16:16, 2 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Also, PicturePerfect666, while I understand the impulse, there really is no need to respond to every !vote that you disagree with. Alpha3031 (t • c) 16:16, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I agree, but they posed valid points worth replying to. It was not just a response for the sake of it. There must be some discussion here and not unchallenged voting. PicturePerfect666 (talk) 17:40, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
 * No, PicturePerfect666, I agree with Alpha3031, and I am the kind of person who might look at this thing and decide how to close it, and I am telling you that the more you respond, the less likely it is that your responses will be taken seriously. Drmies (talk) 22:07, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Then that is more on you than on me and shows the lack of objectivity you bring to the closing of a discussion as you have clearly shown (with the above contribution) you personalise a discussion. An AfD is supposed to be a discussion, not a series of unchallenged vote positions. Who knows after discussion it could be one changes their mind, or provides information that I change my mind. This is no place to try and limit discussion, as the purpose is to build the best encyclopaedia not win-lose or personalise things. PicturePerfect666 (talk) 00:37, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Left a note on talk page. Alpha3031 (t • c) 16:33, 4 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Delete. Does not pass Notability (people) yet: WP:Too soon. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:35, 3 November 2023 (UTC).
 * Keep Aside from her Parliamentary and union politics, she has also published a range of articles, and is cited in others. See these two that she authoered:
 * https://ojs.victoria.ac.nz/LEW/article/view/1175
 * https://search.informit.org/doi/abs/10.3316/INFORMIT.150516549036905
 * And these that she is referred to in:
 * https://www.proquest.com/docview/233249549?pq-origsite=gscholar&fromopenview=true
 * https://books.google.co.nz/books?hl=en&lr=&id=Rp2hCgAAQBAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PR8&dq=%22Jill+Ovens%22&ots=5cdr4gGxAD&sig=9D217g0xi6Q9CGqYD5xguCcKMUs&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=%22Jill%20Ovens%22&f=false
 * https://search.informit.org/doi/pdf/10.3316/informit.170019583754106?casa_token=VX63ccHYOb4AAAAA:nlalEOmFTxpyPesq059jHeXkEkwCYvRnRoofA6G5AtOlkvLU6ugKWRIjkJv7uDLu2jtn6C4zI6Q5ew33
 * All-in-all, I think that if her page was fleshed out with some of her academic work (she did edit a journal), it creates picture of someone who has had a significant impact on the industrial relations of the country. Nauseous Man (talk) 03:10, 4 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Comment. The links above are just to stuff she has published. Publishing stuff counts for nothing on Wikipedia. What counts is how much influence her work has had on others and the GS link above shows this to be close to zero. There is not the slightest chance of passing WP:Prof. WP:GNG is not satisfied either as the mentions are in passing with nothing in-depth. Xxanthippe (talk) 03:24, 4 November 2023 (UTC).
 * Nauseous Man, Xxanthippe is correct: coverage needs to be about the person, not by the person. If you can start showing stuff where she is cited, that's a different thing, but if Xxanthippe is correct about the Google Scholar search, that may be a vain effort. Drmies (talk) 20:42, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep I have been expanding this article and think there is enough there to achieve GNG. There is lots of information written about her activities in the union movement over many years now added to the article (and more to come) all with reliable secondary sources. Kiwichris (talk) 00:58, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
 * They are passing mentions. There is nothing in-depth. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:30, 7 November 2023 (UTC).
 * That's not true, regardless remember that for GNG the person does not need to be the main topic of the source material. Articles about events that also detail a person's activities regarding them are perfectly fine. Kiwichris (talk) 03:35, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Chris, I've taken a look at some of the sources you've added (e.g. way we were, tech subjects at risk) but there were a fair number of them. Are you able to clarify which ones you intend to be considered towards BASIC/GNG? Not being the main topic is fine, but WP:SIGCOV still says directly and in detail in the sentence before that. More importantly, is there anything that isn't composed of quotes for the subject, "she said X, she said Y, she said Z," etc? That kind of coverage is perfectly fine for filling an article out, subject to WP:PRIMARY, but it isn't the type of thing that would support a claim for BASIC. Alpha3031 (t • c) 04:48, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Weak keep. This is not a response to the reply above, I'm leaving my vote here because this AfD is malformed. In my google search I did find some sources that do seem to give some importance to her (ref, ref). That, along with the fact that Women's Rights Party will probably end up merged to this page, is enough to convince me that she is a marginally notable person with a significant chance of receiving more coverage in the near future and that this article should be kept. I would be willing to merge this article to MERAS (the organization she represented for a while), but since it doesn't exist I think we can leave everything here. SparklyNights 22:12, 8 November 2023 (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.