Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mary Wooldridge


 * 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, defaulting to keep. Can&#39;t sleep, clown will eat me 20:39, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Mary Wooldridge
The article currently violates WP:BIO (being a relative of notable people is a consideration for notability), and WP:V (from what I see in Google I can't find an article from a third-party reliable source about her specifically - lot of brief mentions, but not a substantial article). I don't care whether she's virtually a lock-in (per Rebecca's comments on the talk page) and the article will be recreated in six months, once she's a candidate (that's predicting the future aka crystal ball); rewrite the article in six months. It seems a little harsh, but I don't want Wikipedia turning into a election platform, and it looks like that's exactly what happened (see Articles for deletion/Chris Gymer). ColourBurst 15:33, 6 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete Unelected candidates in non-national races don't seem notable enough to me. Deli nk 19:02, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. What is the point of deleting this article now only to definitely have to recreate it later? Unlike Gymer, Wooldridge is a virtual certainty to be elected. Rebecca 01:14, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment Having a neutral point of view. Like I said, arbitrarily deciding the outcome of an election isn't the purpose of Wikipedia, even if it is guaranteed (of which we only have your word.  See WP:V, which this article also doesn't meet.)  ColourBurst 01:50, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
 * The page isn't here to arbitrarily decide the outcome of an election. It's here because she's notable, on the basis that she will, pending a major upset that no poll I've seen has so far predicted, enter parliament in a matter of months. It may be unsourced at present, but it's fairly clearly verifiable - do some research before complaining. Rebecca 02:24, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment See also WP:NOT. If her notability only hinges on the election outcome, then we're predicting she'll win (since candidates are not notable, whereas elected officials are).  If she's notable by some other criteria in WP:BIO, then fine, she stays.  However, the onus is on you to get the sources required, since you're arguing to keep the article.  ColourBurst 04:05, 7 October 2006 (UTC)


 * . I know Mary Wooldridge and she will meet WP:BIO if she is elected to the Victorian parliament. A search of EBBSCO's Australia and New Zealand database comes up with some mentions of her name. However, it might not be enough to get her over the line at the moment. Capitalistroadster 03:18, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions.   -- Capitalistroadster 03:24, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete Political candidates are not notable until they get elected. She has not been elected yet.  Seems very clear-cut to me. Lankiveil 05:58, 7 October 2006 (UTC).
 * What on earth is the purpose of deleting an article now when we know we will have to recreate it in less than a month and it has perfectly verifiable content? This is deletionism gone silly. Rebecca 00:42, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep as per Rebecca. The difference bewteen Wooldridge and Gymer is that Wooldridge will likely be elected, where as Gymer has no chance. Teiresias84 03:35, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. Article does not meet WP:BIO (notability) or WP:V (Verifiability) guidelines. The application of these criteria should be consistent in Wikipedia. The article is furthering the profile of a political candidate while the article of a peer candidate (Chris Gymer) has just been deleted. Also note that she is running in a marginal seat (Doncaster), and may not be elected. If she is, an article would be warranted. --Peter Campbell 03:52, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Is this supposed to be revenge for the Gymer deletion? Gymer had no chance of being elected, whereas Wooldridge is a virtual-certainty. The article would be easily verifiable if anyone actually bothered to do so, and will undoubtedly be recreated in exactly this state in three weeks time if it is deleted now. This is plainly silly. Rebecca 08:48, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
 * No, this is not revenge. If this was a real motive I would have nominated this article for deletion, and you will recall that I chose not to. I don't think it is silly to apply policy and guidelines in a consistent manner - I think this is just good process, and quite straightforward. Conversely, I don't think that bending or interpreting guidelines based on perceptions about what may happen in the future is good practice or fair. --Peter Campbell 10:45, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
 * We're not bending anything. Deleting a page now, only to have to definitely recreate exactly the same article in exactly the same state is the very definition of stupidity. Rebecca 01:49, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't think it is stupid at all, so let's agree to differ. I have copyedited the content to  and will reinstate the article if it is  deleted and she gets elected. However, it does need more references and content to improve it from being an electioneering  puff piece. Peter Campbell 03:08, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
 * What is the point of taking it off the site when it has potential readers? Delete it after the election if the unlikely occurs and she actually loses. Rebecca 09:56, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
 * What is the point of taking it off the site when it has potential readers? Delete it after the election if the unlikely occurs and she actually loses. Rebecca 09:56, 11 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Cleanup This article currently only cites self-published works (the candidate's web site, and the liberal party web site). This does not conform with wikipedia's policies on reliable sources. Andjam 13:38, 10 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete She gets a page when she gets elected, not as part of her election campaign. Besides, she is not a shoo-in. The margin in her seat is only a couple of percent, and she replaces a prominent and long-serving member.--Michael Johnson 22:40, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment There is an election within 45 days in Victoria. If this article is kept, then from a NPOV I would think that all candidates should be allowed an article. The problem is that a Wiki entry will come up in a Google search, and may give the impression that one candidate is "more notable" than others. The question we should be asking, is strip the article of any mention of her standing for Parliament, and is she notable enough? And BTW I would have voted for the Gymer deletion, too. --Michael Johnson 00:16, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I have no issue with giving all candidates pages, but I'm clearly in the minority on that one. What I do take serious objection to, is deleting a page on someone who is almost definitely going to win, as deleting a page when one knows that one will definitely have to recreate it in three weeks is madness. And her imminent entry into parliament is the reason why she is notable, so excluding that from the rationale would be rather illogical. Rebecca 01:49, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Doncaster would take a swing of 0.8% to fall to the Labor party. Given that long-term members are normally supposed to have a personal vote of 1 to 2%, I'd be working hard for her right now, because if everything else stays the same, she is gone. So no, it is not a sure thing. As has been said before, Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. As for all candidates having articles, well perhaps you are right, but that is not the status quo on Wikipedia right now. BTW, it would be nothing to copy the edit page on the article and store it on your computer for a few weeks. --Michael Johnson 02:42, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Except that every single poll I've seen in recent months has showed a swing to the Liberal Party, which makes Wooldridge's victory a virtual certainty. Having to take the article off the site for three weeks is stupid - in the unlikely event that she loses, delete the article then. Rebecca 09:56, 11 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep per Rebecca, the article is here because the subject is notable. RFerreira 01:51, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep per Rebecca. Peter, I don't find your suggestion very satisfactory because the history will be lost, violating the GFDL. The best option is to keep the article and delete it after the election if need be. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 10:00, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment But as previously noted, this gives her some electoral advantage over other candidates - which is pretty clearly the intent of the article. Is this what Wikipedia is about? Peter Campbell 13:42, 11 October 2006 (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.