Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lisa Duffy (politician)


 * 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 UK Independence Party leadership election, 2016. Redirected and article history preserved in the event she is elected. (non-admin closure) -- Dane 2007  talk 02:28, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Lisa Duffy (politician)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Fails WP:NPOL. Has only been elected at local level. Is currently standing to be the leader of a national party, but being a candidate is not sufficient. (I have no objection to the page being re-created should she become leader of UKIP, although current press coverage does not suggest that is particularly likely.) Bondegezou (talk) 15:08, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
 * comment As I said before, just think this is weird timing. She probably won't win (although she's second favourite by some measures, and woolfe may have missed the deadline) and if not will probably go back behind the scenes (as far as the press are concerned that is, she's not exactly a secret), but to make this decision now rather than in a month seems a (potential) waste of time. 79.74.22.25 (talk) 17:44, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I appreciate the enthusiasm behind the creation of this article, but good Wikpedia practice is to wait for someone to become notable before creating an article. Any useful material can be used on the leadership article for now. Standard practice, as per WP:NPOL, is to cover otherwise non-notable candidates in election articles. If Ms Duffy later becomes notable, for whatever reason, it will be simple to re-create the article. We can sandbox the content for now to make that even easier. Bondegezou (talk) 20:52, 1 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete - Non notable mayor for a small town. If she becomes the "leader of UKIP" as Bondegezou noted, we can restore the page but that is unlikely to happen. Meatsgains (talk) 17:58, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep - she is a noted politician. she is running to become the leader of the party. per WP:GNG.BabbaQ (talk) 19:58, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
 * WP:NPOL is clear: when the RS coverage of an individual is only in terms of an election, then we cover their candidacy in the election article, not as a separate article. Her candidacy is notable and should, of course, be covered on the leadership article. She is not (for now) notable other than in terms of that candidacy. Bondegezou (talk) 20:52, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
 * The RS coverage of her isn't only in terms of this election. While the previous coverage seemingly isn't enough for wikis notability on it's own, her & her family (one story for son, one for mother-in-law, a few for hubby, she has other councillor relatives too IIRC) have recieved media coverage on their own merits for the last ~5 years. She was far more notable than the average local councillor before standing (though the average local councillor barely gets their name in the paper at all ofc). Don't know how cumulative NPOL & GNG works, individually she doesn't pass either, but together? There are more media mentions in the last few hours, so...I dunno the process there. If we sandbox, are people likely to find that sandbox to edit? I didn't create this article, but think now we have it it only makes sense (if nothing else in IAR way) to let it be until after election. I see this happens a lot on wiki, article deletion debates on notability happening early on in notability whilst the subject is having RSs created about it. V is varying during the consensus process, I mean...it seems unhelpful to be debating notability during a media spike. Though if that NPOL is certain that no amount of this-election-related-coverage can count unless she wins, perhaps that doesn't apply in this case.79.74.22.25 (talk) 00:00, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. North America1000 23:11, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. North America1000 23:11, 1 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete Duffy is currently only known as a town councillor. Not even a county councillor but a town councillor! Standing in a leadership election does not equate to automatic notability. AusLondonder (talk) 23:17, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Merge or redirect to UK Independence Party leadership election, 2016, per nominator's comment above that "we cover their candidacy in the election article". This can be undone if she's elected. Qwfp (talk) 10:55, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Merge and redirect: Per Qwfp.  But keep the bluelink.  If she wins, then the article history is preserved.  If she loses, pretty much same rationale if she later becomes notable.   Montanabw (talk)  18:07, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep. Already a notable politician in the UK. Over 10,000 hits on Google.--Ipigott (talk) 08:48, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Merge and redirect. A person does not get a Wikipedia article just for being a candidate for the leadership of a political party — if you cannot credibly demonstrate and reliably source that she was already eligible for a Wikipedia article before she became a candidate, then she does not become eligible for a Wikipedia article until she wins the leadership. But nothing here makes or sources any credible evidence of preexisting notability, so for the moment she's just a WP:BLP1E who should be covered in the article that relates to the event. No prejudice against recreation if she wins the leadership, but nothing here entitles her to already have an article today. Bearcat (talk) 19:05, 7 August 2016 (UTC)


 * My understanding is that blp1e is for people who are nobodies until one media story about them (eg, clockboy), not for people who're of mild (but not quite article worthy) notability for years. She's got a few things about her, each of which, individually, are apparently not enough for an article, but she isn't a single event thing. There is a considerable gap between having no notability at all, and having enough for an article. I think people are blurring the understanding of a rule intended for individuals without RSs outside of being a candidate for something highly notable, and an individual of borderline notability & many pre-existing RSs standing as candidate for something highly notable. 92.26.143.240 (talk) 22:30, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Dane 2007  talk 12:22, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Redirect as suggested above (there's not really anything to merge) for the moment. It's reasonable to incorporate candidates at the campaign unless they can show individual notability outside the campaign, and a redirect is more useful than a deletion at the moment. She doesn't appear to quite meet WP:NPOL#2 or #3, although she's received more passing mention (of her roles as a party director and campaign manager) in nonlocal sources than might be common for a local mayor. The argument for keeping that a couple of editors were wondering about is WP:NPOINTS, but having looked at a sampling of sources up to the beginning of this year, I don't think that it's quite met in this case (If NPOINTS were met, NPOL would almost certainly be met). Suggest for those arguing keep to provide a reasonable sample of reliable pre-2016 sources such as ongoing national news coverage of her mayoracy, or more than passing coverage of her roles in the party hierarchy, that can demonstrate her notability. ~Hydronium~Hydroxide~(Talk)~ 13:15, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Redirect per WP:NPOL. Local councillor status is not notable enough. Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 21:49, 8 August 2016 (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.