Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jo Pike


 * 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. Notability seems borderline at best. Both "keep" and "delete" !votes have good, policy-based arguments. However, I cannot discern any consensus here either way. No prejudice against re-nominating if she doesn't get elected. Randykitty (talk) 14:49, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

Jo Pike

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This article fails on grounds of notability. It fails WP:PERSON: the notability requirements for a politician state that simply running for office is not enough to warrant an article. It also fails WP:ACADEMIC: Dr Pike is not editor of a prestigious academic journal, has not held the highest elected position at a university, has not received a prestigious academic award and has not made a significant impact in the area of higher education. Delete on grounds of a lack of notability. FirefoxLSD (talk) 15:43, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions.  MT Train Talk 17:50, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions.  MT Train Talk 17:50, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
 * The full text for WP:PERSON reads: Just being an elected local official, or an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability, although such people can still be notable if they meet the primary notability criterion of "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject of the article". Both Keighley News and the Telegraph and Argus covered Pike's selection by the Labour Party and Philip Davies MP (who she will run against) is a controversial figure who has attracted a great deal of coverage for his views. At the 2017 UK general election, Davies won with 51.3% of the vote (27,417 votes) while Labour were second with 42.6% of the vote (22,736 votes). So who Labour chooses to run against a contentious figure for next time (and there could be an early general election) is notable. --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 20:09, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Notability is not inherited, so a candidate for political office does not get an inclusion freebie just because the incumbent she's running against happens to be a "controversial" figure. And every person who gets selected as a candidate for any party in any election is always going to be able to show a few pieces of evidence of local coverage of that fact itself, so that coverage cannot be used to get a candidate over WP:GNG in lieu of having to pass NPOL either — because if that were all it took, then every candidate everywhere would always get to claim that detour around having to pass NPOL. To make a candidate notable enough for an article on the grounds of being a candidate per se, what needs to be shown is not "some local campaign coverage exists", but "she got so much more campaign coverage than everybody else in the election also got that she can credibly claim to be a special case". And the only other path that exists at all is "was already notable for other reasons besides her candidacy". Bearcat (talk) 21:07, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
 * She's not inheriting anything. Labour is the UK's opposition party and the nearest rival to Davies at Shipley. Pike is Labour's candidate not a minority party's candidate or an independent. --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 19:17, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
 * It's irrelevant whether the party is a major or a minor one. Regardless of what party a person is a candidate for, being a candidate is not a notability claim in and of itself — a person has to win the election and hold the office to be notable as a politician, not just be a candidate, and is not handed a notability freebie just because the incumbent MP she happens to be running against is "controversial". Either she defeats him on election day and becomes the new MP, or she's not notable as a politician at all and qualifies for an article only if you can demonstrate that she was already notable enough for an article for some other reason besides being a candidate. Bearcat (talk) 23:41, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 12:53, 18 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete. The depth of sourcing here is not enough to make her candidacy a special case over and above everybody else's candidacy — every candidate in every election always gets some campaign coverage, because that's what local media is for, so the existence of a handful of local campaign coverage is not in and of itself enough to exempt her from having to actually pass WP:NPOL. But there's no strong evidence here of preexisting notability for other reasons that would get her over any other inclusion criterion. Bearcat (talk) 21:07, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete I agree with the deletion of the Jo Pike this article. Fred (talk) 16:02, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't know how many AfD's you have commented on before but comments are usually preceeded by Delete or Keep or Comment. Delete or Keep is then followed by your reasoning. --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 13:02, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the pro-tip! My reasons are the same as previously discussed, WP:N, namely.Fred (talk) 17:33, 22 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Comment The subject's book "The Moral Geographies of Children,...." received an article-length review in the journal Food, Culture and Society. If there is second long-form review, I'd argue that met WP:AUTHOR crit. 3, I don't see that, however. --joe deckertalk 06:46, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I've added Cairn's review. --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 13:13, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
 * It doesn't meet those criteria - a review must be "in addition to" the book being notable, something that it isn't.FirefoxLSD (talk) 08:29, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Relisting to allow time for discussion of the source found by

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- RoySmith (talk) 21:20, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

As a follow up to 's discovery of the book, I'm fairly certain that the book does not meet the requirements of criteria 3. Criteria 3 specifies that it must be "significant or well known" in order to meet this requirement. This book isn't well known or significant. I realise that as an academic text, exposure to a reading public will naturally be much smaller, but a quick search of Google Scholar, Google books and JStor fails to reveal many if any citings of the book - it clearly isn't that significant even in the academic world. The fact that the book has a full length review does not cancel out my point: the guidelines specify that this must be "in addition" to the book being significant of its own accord. Just having academic reviews does not make a book significant, as nearly every book has a review in some journal.FirefoxLSD (talk) 08:29, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but I think you have it wrong. If the book has two academic reviews that book is notable under our guidelines, which is a higher bar than "significant".  So AUTHOR 3 would apply. Generally, in my long experience closing AfDs, two signficant academic reviews would be considered sufficient. Still, if nothing else, the notability of the book (and its eligibility for an article) has been demonstrated, assuming those two reviews are independent, long form, and reputable. --joe deckertalk 22:51, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Joe, where are you seeing that. I do a lot of these, and 3 reviews of a single book is the consensus bare minimum.E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:58, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Note, however, that I haven't looked at the second review, and y'all can hash out the specifics as to that. --joe deckertalk 22:58, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Second book review added by Zofia Boni in the journal Children's Geographies. --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 11:00, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Enos733 (talk) 16:06, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/jan/24/momentum-labour-selection-defeats-seats-control-party http://www.thetelegraphandargus.co.uk/news/16081738.Plans_to_take_free_school_meals_from_children_not_true__says_Shipley_MP/ http://www.thetelegraphandargus.co.uk/news/local/keighleynews/16118925.Anti_incinerator_campaigners_confirm_plans_for_new_appeal_against_proposals/ http://www.keighleynews.co.uk/news/16116543.Keighley_s_anti_waste_to_energy_plant_campaigners_confirm_plans_for_new_appeal_against_the_proposals/ Her 'Foucault, space and primary school dining rooms' also has quite a few citations. Stuartyeates (talk) 02:53, 27 April 2018 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep per WP:Author. The academic reviews appear to show the subject meets criteria 3 ("work must have been the primary subject" ... "of multiple independent periodical articles"). The article should be rewritten to stress why the subject is notable. --Enos733 (talk) 05:13, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete per nomination mostly. This is very likely a case of WP:TOOSOON. Criteria 3 of WP:AUTHOR requires that the work in question "significant or well-known work or collective body of work", and that book isn't that by a long shot. Can be recreated one elected, or once WP:PROF is met. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 12:22, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep per coverage. https://www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/news/opinion/jo-pike-where-s-the-political-appetite-to-tackle-food-poverty-1-9017366 http://www.thetelegraphandargus.co.uk/news/local/airelocal/15712847.Labour_choose_lecturer_to_try_and_unseat_Shipley_MP_Philip_Davies/ https://labourlist.org/2017/12/labour-picks-child-poverty-expert-to-unseat-tory-brexiteer-philip-davies/ http://www.thetelegraphandargus.co.uk/NEWS/15776241.Books_donated_to_primary_school_by_Parliamentary_candidate/

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 13:35, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep as passes WP:GNG due to coverage as listed above. Ross-c (talk) 14:20, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete As Headbomb said. Fails WP:AUTHOR since the book isn't particularly significant or well known. WP:PROF hasn't been met - yet - either. Notability isn't inherited, and as has been gone over beforehand, simply running to become an MP - no matter how notable the incumbent may or may not be - doesn't  in and of itself deserve an article. Local coverage of her nomination isn't enough either - local papers will always cover such things, but that doesn't mean proper notability. Should she win whenever the next election is called, then obviously an article should be created. However, as things stand she fails both the notability criteria of both politicians and academics.TeddyBiffles (talk) 20:57, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment In looking through WP:Articles for deletion/Common outcomes, the discussion of literature is "published authors are kept as notable if they have received multiple independent reviews of or awards for their work. The question, in my mind, then, is if the reviews found by Joe Decker and the Village Feminist are significant academic reviews. If so, then the subject meets WP:Author. --Enos733 (talk) 00:02, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
 * The journal articles are published in Food, Culture & Society: An International Journal of Multidisciplinary Research (here) and Children's Geographies (here), both by Routledge. I've changed the infobox from scholar to writer with The Moral Geographies of Children, Young People and Food: Beyond Jamie's School Dinners as her most notable work. --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 13:56, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
 * That is discussing literature. Academic books/articles, which are what Jo Pike has written, are not covered under the literature guidelines, as they aren't literature. Wikipedia's guidelines for the notability of academics stress that simply having reviews is not enough, since almost every academic article will have them. The guidelines suggest the academic must be the author of "highly cited academic work", something none of Pike's articles are. None of the other guidelines for "significant impact" are relevant to her.TeddyBiffles (talk) 11:15, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
 * WP:NACADEMIC states: Academics/professors meeting none of these conditions may still be notable if they meet the conditions of WP:BIO or other notability criteria, and the merits of an article on the academic/professor will depend largely on the extent to which it is verifiable. The reviews named are not for an article, they are for her book. Pike is providing evidence to the All-Nation Children's Future Food Inquiry Parliamentary Inquiry and has been named as Labour's candidate for Shipley. --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 17:31, 2 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete fails WP:ACADEMIC, fails WP:NPOL, fails WP:GNG, fails WP:AUTHOR (one book, that got only 2 book reviews, no evidence that book had impact.) - perhaps it is merely WP:TOOSOON for this academic who is now a politician running for office.E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:52, 7 May 2018 (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.