Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Layla Moran


 * 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   redirect to Battersea (UK Parliament constituency). Shimeru (talk) 07:09, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Layla Moran

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Declined CSD. Non notable political candidate who does not currently hold any political office. The debate centres round the last ground of WP:POLITICIAN which says "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."  The arguement for retention is because she has been quoted in the media shed has acquired notability.  My arguement for deletion is that until she achives something, WP:BLP1E applies as any would be MP who cannot achive significant media coverage at the time of a general election should not be standing for office.  Unless she succeeds in being elected I think she remains a 'low profile individual'. NtheP (talk) 07:17, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I admit to a certain confusion about "WP:BLP1E applies as any would be MP who cannot achive significant media coverage at the time of a general election should not be standing for office." This seems judgmental: Whether or not she should be standing for office, she is. whether she merits it is for the voters to decide, not us.  DGG ( talk ) 08:33, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry my point is that the only coverage of her is as a potential MP, nothing else. NtheP (talk) 09:14, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

So really this is not a discussion about WP:POLITICIAN at all, IMHO. It's a discussion about whether she meets the general notability guideline. In this case the article subject has non-trivial coverage (1/3 of the story is specifically about her) in one BBC news article, and is quoted in a two of other articles from the BBC and elsewhere. I think that just pushes her over the line of notability, which is why I spent some time improving the article. However others with more experience in making these judgments than I might think otherwise, and I cheerfully accept that. Thparkth (talk) 13:26, 24 April 2010 (UTC)  Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget  01:51, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Weak keep. We all agree that being a political candidate alone doesn't make someone notable (which is the point of WP:POLITICIAN), but neither does it impose a higher standard of notability than would be required for a non-political-candidate. The general notability guideline still applies. If she has significant coverage in independent reliable sources, she's notable. In my opinion, there's nothing in WP:POLITICIAN or WP:NOTABILITY to indicate that coverage generated through being a political candidate doesn't count for notability purposes.
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:41, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:41, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Battersea (UK Parliament constituency). If she gets coverage only because of her candidacy she ought to be redirected per WP:POLITICIAN. --Mkativerata (talk) 17:34, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Redirect. Coverage beyond bog-standard entries for PPCs are a BBC article that covers her as one of several candidates, and another article where she expresses her opinion on coalition options. A start, but not enough. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 19:26, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Delete She is not notable - articles are all trivial mentions of those under starters' orders. WP is not a soapbox for general elections candidates Ohconfucius  ¡digame! 23:25, 1 May 2010 (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.