Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Luke Wijohn


 * 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. – bradv 🍁  00:10, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

Luke Wijohn

 * – ( View AfD View log )

The claims to notability for this person are not credible enough to warrant having an article. Every election has many volunteers, he accepted an award on behalf of the movement - he is not the movement, he was part of a group of 120 Youth MPs - not every Youth MP has a page, he was part of a group that engaged in a parliamentary protest - not infrequent and the other 13 would have similar aggregate to warrant a page. Furthermore, he was not elected as a Green MP. None of this is credible enough. I note the contribution made by Sdrqaz, however I refer him to the fact that not every candidate - let alone a third-party general election candidate would otherwise warrant an article in a seat that he was very unlikely to win and in a relatively low list position. I also refer him to the WikiProject for New Zealand politics for the New MPs for the 2020 General Election - the candidates held likely to win that did not win have not had their articles published. It's clearly established that a general election candidacy in and of itself does not warrant a reasonable claim to significance. The wording used in that WikiProject is "This draft is only likely to be published as a Wikipedia article if the person wins the election." - it is clear on that basis that had the person in question won a seat in the election that they would be entitled to a reasonable claim of significance - however, they did not and thus do not have a reasonable claim to significance. IncredibleWalrus (talk) 11:47, 28 August 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep. The nominator (who I will point out created their account solely to target the page of someone in the news today) points to various things that do not individually make someone notable. They do not address the idea that all of these things in combination could make someone notable. The subject of this article has a decent amount of coverage from reliable sources, both about him as part of a group and him individually. There are many school striker articles that honestly could be looked at for deletion, with less references and the strike being their only claim to fame. I do not believe this is one of them.--Pokelova (talk) 12:02, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I thank the creator of the article for their submission, however, I will note that Wikipedia does guide against using the news as a means of argument on this and I would think it appropriate that this same courtesy was extended to the converse side of things. I also note that the creator of the article states that the aggregate of all of these things mentioned in my reason for nomination of which I made reference to in my nomination - that there are still similar people (Such as those listed in the same petition from Youth MPs sourced in the article) that attained the aggregate benchmark that he submits warrants a claim to significance, and they don't have their own articles because there isn't a reasonable claim of significance. I also ask whether asking "what about the others" is the wisest choice of words in this article for deletion considering the fact that we're not discussing those other articles. I do not see why whataboutism and news articles to undermine the existence of my account is remotely relevant to the course of this discussion and offers no substance whatsoever to supposing as to how the aggregate of his achievements makes him notable in any regard that meets Wikipedia's criteria? IncredibleWalrus (talk) 12:15, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I do not believe that what I said was whataboutism. I was not saying "these articles exist so this should exist, it was more like "I understand that some articles in this field maybe should not exist but this one should because I believe it meets GNG. --Pokelova (talk) 12:26, 28 August 2021 (UTC)


 * Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Articles for deletion/Log/2021 August 28.  —cyberbot I   Talk to my owner :Online 12:08, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Engr.  Smitty   Werben 14:30, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. Engr.  Smitty   Werben 14:30, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. Engr.  Smitty   Werben 14:31, 28 August 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep, bad timing to nominate the article of someone currently in the news, and the nominator's brand new account is very up with Wikipedia terminology. I don't think this nomination is in good faith.- gadfium 18:50, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Strong delete: It's odd that speedy deletion was objected to - in my view it very clearly fails basic notability requirements. Political candidates are not entitled to Wikipedia pages and wiki is not a promotional page to give platforms to candidates, and unfortunately that seems to be the case for now as most of the references are simply about the article subject's political candidacy (to be clear though if elected as an MP in the future, then of course that would change things). The only other suggestion of why the page exists is they featured in some other news articles over a particular current event, however this very clearly fails to meet the threshold for an article as per WP:BLP1E. People get mentioned in news articles all the time for various reasons and events, but that isn't a reason in itself for having a page and the guidelines very clearly set that out. In summary, as this doesn't follow notability requirements and wikipedia is not a news site or political candidate information place, deletion seems the only appropriate option. Greenleader(2) (talk) 01:00, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Tagging if they wish to comment as the one who objected to the speedy deletion.--Pokelova (talk) 02:03, 29 August 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep I agree with Gadfium – this appears to be a case of bad faith. But more to the point, there has been plenty enough in-depth coverage in reliable sources for GNG to be met.  Schwede 66  07:59, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I share your concern that the nomination may have been in bad faith and it is troubling that the proposer's account was only active for a short time before proceeding with this. However for now, that is not what is up for us to discuss. Bad or good faith, when examining this page's case it seemed obvious to me that it doesn't meet the threshold for an article which is why I added my own perspective. It troubles me that 9 out of the 12 references relate to the political candidacy of the individual - extensive articles get done about candidates all the time, it doesn't entitle people to the creation of a wiki page and we should not conflate being a candidate with warranting a page or giving platforms to people for the sake of it. In my home UK constituency theres been many articles about one of our candidates by major news sources - it doesn't warrant a page though and never has unless they truly are known for something else external to just being a candidate. Their candidacy could be mentioned on the Mount Albert electorate page or something, but we don't give wiki pages to people just for being a candidate and generating some media interest for it. Secondly, the other references are rather brief mentions of being a Youth MP or relate to mentions of their activism, which isn't particularly notable and hasn't previously indicated notability nor is the person extensively focused on in these - so we cannot use those 3 references as indications of notability. As for one recent article I could find that mentions them, the headline notes their significance comes from being a party candidate "Covid 19 Delta outbreak: Police threaten to arrest ex-Greens candidate Luke Wijohn who films them making late night arrest." To me that suggests they aren't yet notable unless associated with their political candidacy and given almost all the references relate to that (9/12 and the other 3 are not remotely notable mentions) it would be inappropriate to maintain this page. I am seriously unconvinced this meets WP:GNG or WP:SIGCOV and it very clearly also fails on WP:BLP1E if there is a particular event they're associated with. Greenleader(2) (talk) 09:54, 29 August 2021 (UTC)


 * I'm not aware of any bad faith in my own practices beyond that of which you and Gadfium have presupposed on me - of which I would otherwise be thankful for the fundamental principle of assuming good faith in these circumstances - WP:AGF. Consider how it would be remotely possible for me to somehow defend a nomination because of a personal accusation made against me that I can't remotely engage in in a legitimate capacity. Furthermore you don't explain how GNG has been met beyond there being plenty of sources, I refer you to the submission by Greenleader where he addresses the ridiculous nature of supposing that an article is warranted based on the simple fact that "well the news discussed them a few times" - the news is irrelevant, as they pointed out and as I pointed out by citing Wikipedia's own principles in my nomination. Continuing, my nomination, which has been made with strict adherence to Wikipedia's principles, and reinforced with authority given by Wikipedia's principles, then I fail to understand why there is a legitimate argument to keep it beyond what you're doing which is to base a debate on it entirely on prejudice on this issue - I note that if AGF doesn't apply here by your own implication then we might take a look at your own conflicts of interest being intertwined with fellow Green Party MPs (notably no candidates listed, strange, don't you think?).IncredibleWalrus (talk) 10:00, 29 August 2021 (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.