Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kelly O'Dwyer


 * 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  Jayron  32  02:45, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Kelly O&

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Candidate for a parliamentary seat with no sources except those regarding her candidacy, no other noteabilities. Articles are not created/not created and left until election for electoral candidates, regardless of their chances of election, as there is no rule to say what sort of margin threshold qualifies for "likely enough to get elected for article to stay". This has been long-standing practise on wikipedia. Suggest deletion of this page, contents can be saved somewhere else until after election should she be elected. Timeshift (talk) 02:36, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep I've seen enough coverage of O'Dwyer during the preselection process and since to convince me that WP:BIO is met. The fact that she's almost certain to be elected to parliament in a few weeks time makes deletion a bit of a pointless exercise as well. Nick-D (talk) 02:49, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Could you please explain in more detail, and along wikipedia guidelines, how news coverage of her candidacy and chances of election meet noteability guidelines? Thankyou. Timeshift (talk) 02:53, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
 * News stories at the time of her preselection discussed the backgrounds of the various candidates for this safe seat, including O'Dwyer's. I think that this level of coverage has been sufficient to meet WP:BIO. Nick-D (talk) 03:12, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but it isn't sufficient. Timeshift (talk) 03:46, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
 * With all respect, that's your view, and I think that notability is met. Nick-D (talk) 04:07, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
 * With all respect, it's wikipedia's view. Articles discussing an election candidate, in themselves, do not establish noteability. She has to be noteable for something else besides her candidacy. This is not my view, this is how it is. Timeshift (talk) 04:25, 31 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep A few things:

1. As I argued at Talk:Higgins by-election, 2009, O'Dwyer will almost certainly be a member of parliament in one month's time. By the time this discussion has run its course, we'll be even closer to that date. Bring this up again in the unlikely even that O'Dwyer loses the by-election. For the time being the deletion of this article would be an exercise in overly fussy housekeeping. There's no harm in waiting.

2. The fact that O'Dwyer is the first woman to be preselected for a safe Liberal House of Reps seat in metro Melbourne – a point I added to the article today – gives her some claim to notability.

3. If there is an establishe d practice of purging the pages of election candidates, it's certainly not a consistent one. Take the upcoming US Congressional special election. Both Bill Owens and Doug Hoffman have wiki articles that revolve around their election candidacy. Reading through their pages I see nothing notable about either outside of their Congressional bids. Both articles have infoboxes devoted to their candidacy.

4. The guideline you're relying on says that "just being [..] an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability." But her notability is not simply the fact of her candidacy but also the likelihood her winning. It's what distinguishes her from her opponents. (Which are the sort of people the guideline is really referring to.)

Digestible (talk) 04:27, 31 October 2009 (UTC)


 * 1. We do not pre-empt articles, it really is that simple. We do not create articles for candidates based on their likelyhood of winning.


 * 2. The first female candidate of x area is not a claim to noteability. Female member, yes, candidate, no.


 * 3. Wikipedia removes non-noteable election candidates. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Timeshift (talk) 05:10, 31 October 2009 (UTC)


 * 4. See 1.


 * It's really basic and simple guys - it's wikipedia policy. Timeshift (talk) 05:10, 31 October 2009 (UTC)


 * 1. I am not arguing for the pre-emptive creation of the article. The article has already been created. I am arguing against the pre-emptive destruction of this article.
 * 2. Maybe, maybe not. That's not for you alone to decide. It's certainly been mentioned in her press coverage.
 * 3. The two articles I cited are not about to be deleted. If you're going to claim precedent, you can't cherry pick.
 * 4. Let me put it another way. The guideline says (paraphrasing) political candidacy does not guarantee notability. You've interpreted this to mean something like: political candidacy alone cannot confer notability. There is a subtle but important difference here. As a refutation of your interpretation I cite Wendell Wilkie whose presidential candidacy was his main (arguably sole) claim to notability.
 * Digestible (talk) 05:26, 31 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete: not sufficiently notable for anything besides being an election candidate. It is against wikipedia policy to predict whether she will win and become notable. Barrylb (talk) 05:51, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Provisionally keep (first pref) or move to userspace/project space (second pref) as an almost certain near-future member of the Parliament, but delete per WP:POLITICIAN if she fails to be elected. Seems a waste of time to delete the page only to have to DRV to reinstate it in a couple of months if she's successful. Orderinchaos 06:21, 31 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Which is why we said move the page, not delete it. So despite this violating wikipedia guidelines, what's the threshold for candidates? When the next federal election is here, can we create articles for all non-marginal party-incumbent candidates? Timeshift (talk) 11:03, 31 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Userification or projectification would be a quite acceptable alternative to keeping. Just thinking about this from a common sense point of view, if we have an article which people can build, add refs to etc, then by close of counting on election night we actually have a pretty decent article (in theory at least). If the worst comes to the worst, we sin-bin it. I'm not saying this approach works in all cases, but in the case of a candidate in a particular race where pretty much all commentators are agreed they're all but certain to win (especially given the main alternative is not running), I think it's fair to have an article for now. Orderinchaos 15:28, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I've already said I have no problem moving it to user or project space - simply that at the moment it violates noteability guidelines. Timeshift (talk) 20:53, 31 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Move to userspace. There is no transience to notability - either someone is notable or they are not. O'Dwyer, at present, is not. Being the first Liberal woman nominated to a safe Melbourne seat is stretching it a bit. What next - the first Labor woman preselected for a safe seat in south-west Sydney? Having this sort of article establishes a very unwelcome precedent, and as the by-election is still more than a month out I think that's a little too long. Actually I think the idea of having candidate articles in userspace is an excellent one - it allows us to build on what becomes known of them during the campaign and then still have a decent article when and if they are elected. It's complete speculation to say that she's "almost-certain to be elected" - especially when nominations for the by-election have not even closed. Frickeg (talk) 22:07, 31 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Exactly. As i've said to show how rediculous this is - if we go down this track, what's the margin needed to know the candidate is likely enough to be elected that we can pre-empt someone's noteability and create a page on them? And at election time can we go around creating all these candidate pages in the *expectation* they'll be elected? Honestly, this is just silly. Someone is noteable or they aren't. O'Dwyer isn't. As i've said, move to user/projectspace. It doesn't belong as an article, yet. Timeshift (talk) 22:17, 31 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions.  —Nick-D (talk) 05:36, 1 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep, meets WP:BIO in the sense that "A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of published[3] secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent,[4] and independent of the subject." There is independent coverage here and here.  Concerns about WP:POLITICIAN are irrelevant given that she meets the more general guideline.  And lets be honest, she's going to meet that guideline as well in a month or so.  Lankiveil (speak to me) 06:22, 1 November 2009 (UTC).


 * That's not the point. If the -ONLY- WP:RS are those covering a candidate's candidacy, that is not sufficent to establish noteability. Timeshift (talk) 06:28, 1 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Reply, I don't see anything at WP:BIO or WP:N that says "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article (unless it's about a run for political office, in which case it doesn't count)." Your interpretation of the policy is, I believe, erroneous, and defies common sense.  Lankiveil (speak to me) 06:48, 1 November 2009 (UTC).
 * It is common for political candidates to receive significant news coverage, but that alone is not enough to confer notability; such an approach would potentially result in a very large number of articles. Is there "common sense" in creating an article for every political candidate just because they are covered in the news? No. Barrylb (talk) 07:17, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

WP:POLITICIAN - 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."

Let me re-iterate. There are no WP:RS articles on Kelly O'Dwyer on anything other than her election candidacy. She has no noteability apart from her candidacy. As per practice with all past candidates with no other form of noteability, this page does not currently belong as an article. As I said before - should we be creating articles for all candidates who are more than likely going to be elected? Sorry but the arguments given in this AfD for keep hold no candle to wikipedia guidelines. Timeshift (talk) 08:34, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Given that no one is arguing that all candidates for political office are automatically notable, the last part of your post seems a bit of a straw man argument. Nick-D (talk) 05:28, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
 * But you seem to be under the impression that just because a candidate is very likely to get elected, that we should pre-empt that. Read WP:POLITICIAN... unless she has done something independent of running for political office which is noteable, then she should not have an article. Timeshift (talk) 06:34, 2 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep Waste of time to delete, as it will be a 95%+ chance of winning a seat that has always been 58-62% blue-ribbon Tory over 40 years. This isn't a 50-50 seat, or a minor party senate candidate or 3rd ranking ALP/Lib senate candidate where there is a lot of luck needed to get in. If by some miracle she loses, then feel free to delete in a few weeks.  YellowMonkey  ( bananabucket ) 07:55, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

So again, the question is - if we're going to start a precedent of creating articles for candidates likely to be elected, what is the criteria, where does it end? A bio article cannot exist if someone isn't noteable - we cannot pre-empt a likelyhood - we cannot crystal ball. Something either is or it isn't. She isn't. She should be moved to a userspace and kept off the encyclopedia until we can verify that she is noteable and suitable for wikipedia. Timeshift (talk) 08:14, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I understand your concern but it is quite pointless to go around in a circle in the 40% of safe seats, especially when the event is only a month away  YellowMonkey  ( bananabucket ) (Invincibles Featured topic drive) 08:17, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Can I ask what is the harm in moving the article to userspace and preserving wikipedia's guidelines, rather than just looking the other way and ignoring these guidelines, simply due to the fact that noteability criterion, if it happens, is one month away? Timeshift (talk) 10:27, 3 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep, in one months time, all indicators show that we will all still be arguing about this and she will be then be sitting in parliament. She, O'Dwyer, is notable as a female whom is contesting a by-election, not an normal election. This is an exta-ordinary event, she is also contesting the seat for the incumbent party in that electorate and therefore is worthy of an article. Neatherless an article will be re made in a months time when she is elected anyway. The Greens don't have a hope, sorry. Watchover (talk) 01:10, 5 November 2009 (UTC)


 * That's not the point. The AEC has not declared her the winner, thus she has not yet won the seat. Timeshift (talk) 20:40, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Also, "the Greens don't have a hope" is OR. You may think that, I certainly think that, but that's our opinion. Just as it is our opinion, even if it is the majority opinion, that O'Dwyer will win. There are no polls to point to, only precedent. See Frome by-election, 2009. Frickeg (talk) 03:26, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Exactly. We're not here on wikipedia to make adhoc, adlib decisions on who we think will soon enough be noteable and soon won't. Someone either is or isn't noteable. This woman isn't, yet. She should be moved to userspace (not deleted) to preserve the integrity of wikipedia's noteability policies. Timeshift (talk) 04:25, 5 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Yawn... I only say that the Greens don't have a hope because of the majority of the editors show strong opinions towards the Greens as if they can win in any seat, and that they are the 'third force' or the 'alternative' thats all. The Frome by-election, 2009 was a marginal seat. Higgins is not. In fact, the Division of Higgins has never had to go to preferences, Frome has. I do not wish to continue in this discussion I am going to go somewhere else and "preserve" Wikipedia's integrity. Watchover (talk) 20:47, 5 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Who's saying the Greens have a substantial chance of winning? Timeshift (talk) 11:03, 5 November 2009 (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.