Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sarah Thomson (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   no consensus. Proposed merge/redirect can be discussed on the article's talk page. Shimeru (talk) 21:03, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Sarah Thomson (politician)

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Procedural nomination after re-creation war - see current WP:ANI thread (now archived). Local political candidate; it is claimed that she almost certainly doesn't pass WP:POLITICIAN but may meet GNG due to (mostly local) press coverage. I am neutral Black Kite (t) (c) 21:14, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment: I don't think anyone is saying she meets WP:POLITICIAN, but I believe she meets WP:GNG. Furthermore, POLITICIAN states that "In the case of candidates for political office who do not meet this guideline, the general rule is to redirect to an appropriate page covering the election or political office sought in lieu of deletion. Relevant material from the biographical article can be merged into the election or political office page if appropriate.". So redirect, rather than outright deletion, would be the appropriate course of action if the result here is not "keep". – xeno talk 21:17, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete through failure to meet WP:POLITICIAN – I know that the repeat-create-edit-war isn't an issue here, but while I'm writing... it was pathetic. ╟─TreasuryTag► Captain-Regent ─╢ 21:20, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Does the article also fail WP:GNG? – xeno talk 21:20, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I am not confident to offer an opinion one way or another on that, but WP:POLITICIAN exists for a reason, not to be trumped by the GNG every time it would otherwise apply. ╟─TreasuryTag► without portfolio ─╢ 21:33, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I think you (or perhaps I) misunderstand the hierarchy of notability guidelines. – xeno talk 21:35, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Regardless of "The Hierarchy" the existence of WP:POLITICIAN is pointless if its outcomes are automatically overruled by WP:GNG. This article is about a politician, fails the relevant guideline, and if it were to be kept nonetheless, that guideline would be literally pointless. For that reason, I think that the page should be deleted. ╟─TreasuryTag► Not-content ─╢ 21:38, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
 * My understanding (perhaps deficient?) is that POLITICIAN is to allow articles that satisfy POLITICIAN but not GNG - not the other way around. Why else would POLITICIAN explicitly defer to GNG? ("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.") [ emph. mine] – xeno talk  21:42, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
 * As Xeno stated, WP:POLITICIAN shows notability for that meet it, as an alternative to WP:GNG, it does not trump GNG. Silver  seren C 23:45, 8 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. --John (talk) 21:26, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
 * The nom did not advance a deletion argument. – xeno talk 21:27, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh come on, Xeno, he did, he advanced the argument outlined by Black Kite, which is that the article "almost certainly doesn't pass WP:POLITICIAN." ╟─TreasuryTag► without portfolio ─╢ 21:33, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
 * See above. – xeno talk 21:35, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Was "above" you simply disagreeing with this argument for deletion? ╟─TreasuryTag► Not-content ─╢ 21:38, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
 * No, I was referring to the discussion immediately above, under your vote. – xeno talk 21:44, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:NOTNEWS and WP:BLP1E. Only real coverage seems to exist within the scope of the 2010 municipal election and the news coverage that follows. As Xeno notes, a merge into a municipal election article would also work. Resolute 21:27, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Being CEO of a major newspaper is not a single event. Silver  seren C 23:45, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Citation needed on "major newspaper". Resolute 18:20, 9 May 2010 (UTC)


 * There is some very limited pre-2010 coverage that mentions her as publisher of Women's Post (though I've never heard of the sources). – xeno talk  21:35, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Those aren't really sources about her, though, they're sources about other issues which mention her magazine and tangentially reference her. I'm not sure that they're enough to qualify her as a notable person in magazine circles... ╟─TreasuryTag► quaestor ─╢ 21:40, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete or Merge - Fails both WP:POLITICIAN and WP:GNG. Merge into municipal election article per Xeno. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:35, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I am leaning merge per Tznkai below, but could you explain how GNG is not satisfied? – xeno talk 21:38, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Sure. Aside from her candidacy, her claim to fame is that she's the publisher of Women's Post. Women's Post is not a newspaper, it's a twice-monthly Canadian national magazine, and its circulation is not 300,000 (that's how many they were hoping to put out) but more like 70,000.  A circulation like that for a national magazine in a country with a population of 34 million does not seem terribly notable, and since her potential notability outside of WP:POLITICIAN is tied to the magazine, she's not terribly notable either.  She could well be in the future, but not at this moment, at least how I read it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:28, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Changed to just Merge. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:49, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Merge to Toronto mayoral election, 2010 Looking through this woman's other accomplishments, none of them seem to have gotten significant coverage. Pretty much all I can find is campaign related, but theres enough out there to put a useful, neutral blurb in the mayoral election.--Tznkai (talk) 21:36, 8 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep This article should not be deleted because the individual has received significant, non-trivial, media coverage by reliable sources. See Google News. in mainstream media where she has received significant coverage. Also, the ex-publisher of the National Post has endorsed her candidacy. For instance, see this item from the CTV News Page (which is a national news network in Canada) "Conrad Black backs candidate in T.O. mayoral race". Notable enough to meet GNG. The person who won the 2003 Mayoral election was initially in single digits as well, see David_Miller_%28Canadian_politician%29. I don't think she'll win but an early poll result is not a reason to render her unnotable. Also, if you read the Google News coverage, her promise to build more subways has influenced other candidates to respond so she is notable. See for instance this article in Toronto Life "Ford signs up for subway-unicorn brigade along with Commander Thomson". Be in Nepean (talk) 21:42, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete due to lack of substantial independent reliable sources (in any version of the article). Its use as part of her campaign marketing is icing on the cake. Be in Nepean, namechecks in coverage of the mayoral campaign are no basis for a biography. There is also no claim to encyclopaedic notability in the article; while the mayor might be notable, with 7% support in the polls she ain't going to be mayor. She's not in the top three even. Guy (Help!) 21:48, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Please take another look. Silver  seren C 23:45, 8 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete or redirect/merge I'm in agreement, at least so far, that the known coverage isn't enough to warrant an article. If better sources are found, and they talk about her more prominently, I'd reconsider. PS. I'd be fine with a redirect to the election article. <font face="Century Gothic"> Equazcion ( talk ) 21:55, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Then please do take another look, as the article has been expanded. I am also still working on it. Silver  seren C 23:45, 8 May 2010 (UTC)


 * <small class="delsort-notice">Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions.  -- Pcap  ping  22:13, 8 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment I think Xeno is making a good point. She has multiple, reliable sources and appears to meet the basic WP:GNG guideline.  Failing WP:Politician does not trump WP:GNG.  Is another guideline at play like WP:BLP1E?  What is wrong with the four newpaper articles cited? RJ (talk) 22:15, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Merge to Toronto mayoral election, 2010 per Tznkai, and per WP:ONEEVENT. If any possible notability relates to that event, include it there in a brief background of her bio. SGGH ping! 22:18, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete - Not only fails WP:POLITICIAN but also WP:GNG. At 7% support I don't really see the need to merge to the local election article. Merge if she climbs in the polls. - Josette (talk) 22:22, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Can you explain how she fails WP:GNG? Silver  seren C 23:45, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't believe the minimal coverage of her job as the publisher of a small newspaper/magazine - local to Toronto with only 61,000 subscribers - satisfies WP:GNG. Any other coverage of her is about the election and we have already established she fails WP:POLITICIAN. Kww and Equazcion say it better below... - Josette (talk) 19:14, 10 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Merge per Tznkai, via WP:BLP1E; once the election passes, if she doesn't get elected (and there's not much chance of that right now) you'll have two statements - she's a publisher of a low-notability magazine, and she tried for election (probably will fail). That the page is being used as a political platform irks me.  Strip away the current political platform and what do you have?  Very little.  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 22:37, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
 * A magazine with 300,000 readers is hardly "low-notability". Silver  seren C 23:45, 8 May 2010 (UTC)


 *  Delete Merge and redirect: Fails WP:POLITICIAN and WP:GNG (all coverage is for WP:ONEEVENT). Any useful content could be merged to the election page, but the bio there should not be expanded---it's not meant to act as an entire bio page for each candidate. -M.Nelson (talk) 23:01, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Shouldn't your vote be merge and redirect then? – xeno <sup style="color:black;">talk 23:04, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Sure. Merge and redirect, making sure to keep the bio at Toronto mayoral election, 2010 concise. -M.Nelson (talk) 23:07, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Sounds reasonable. – xeno <sup style="color:black;">talk 23:09, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete as failing WP:POLITICIAN and WP:GNG. I would say merge, but I don't think there are going to be enough people searching for the term Sarah Thomson (politician) to justify leaving a redirect behind. When a BLP is this short, it's probably safer to delete and interested parties can add appropriate information to the article on the election. AniMate  23:08, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Shouldn't that be addressed via a hatnote at Sarah Thomson ? – xeno <sup style="color:black;">talk 23:09, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Merge and redirect for now at minimum. While The only significant coverage seems to be related to the election, and the guidance at WP:POLITICIAN suggests this as the appropriate course of action. – xeno <sup style="color:black;">talk 23:09, 8 May 2010 (UTC) annoted 23:53, 8 May 2010 (UTC) based on expansion of article, will revisit later
 * Changing vote to simply keep. After the expansion, there seems to be more than enough here to satisfy WP:GNG. Agree that (politician) is probably not the best disambiguator. – xeno <sup style="color:black;">talk 14:15, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Redirect She fails WP:N via WP:BLP1E. WLU's summary makes sense.  When she loses the election, we have: (1) Failed city council campaign, (2) Publisher of Women's Post, (3) Failed mayorial campaign.  There is no point in merging.  If you look at local election article, Sarah Thomson (politician) already has her own section which is basically a duplicate of this article.  There is little to no unique information to merge. RJ (talk) 23:12, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually, she is founder and CEO of Women's Post. Silver  seren C 23:45, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
 * If she is notable as a publisher, then this article should be moved to Sarah Thomson (publisher) and switch focus to her contributions there. My problem with this keep and move is the lack of references that mention her as publisher first and politician second.  All the references are in relation to her political campaign.  I have yet to see a single reliable secondary resource about her position as the founder and publisher of Women's Post. (the Publisher Article is a good one).  We are left with an article that says she is the founder and publisher of the Women's Post from references that relate to her political ambitions which is odd. RJ (talk) 17:50, 9 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Note: This article has been nominated for rescue. Silver  seren C 23:39, 8 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment I have tagged this article for rescue. Silver  seren C 23:39, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment I have added new sources and am in the process of expanding the article. Silver  seren C 23:39, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep I do not think that she should be considered notable because of her politician status (because she doesn't, she fails WP:POLITICIAN), but I do believe that she is notable because of the significant coverage about her that passes WP:GNG and the fact that she is the founder and CEO of Women's Post, which generates more than enough notability for her. Silver  seren C 23:39, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep- The article meets the GNG by a landslide. Forcing it to jump through the additional hoop of WP:POLITICIAN is pointless. Umbralcorax (talk) 23:48, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Plenty of coverage of her out there.   D r e a m Focus  23:48, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete at least for now. I believe the specific notability guidelines trump WP:GNG, and she does not satisfy WP:POLITICIAN, at least right now.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:22, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
 * The specific notability guidelines also say "A person is generally notable if they meet any of the following standards. Failure to meet these criteria is not conclusive proof that a subject should not be included; conversely, meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included.


 * A person who fails to meet these additional criteria may still be notable under Wikipedia:Notability.", which means that, if they do not meet them, then they default to seeing if they meet WP:GNG. If they do not meet that, then it isn't notable. The Additional Criteria are there to establish notability for those extraneous to the GNG, so that they can still be considered notable if they meet those specific criteria, yet fail the GNG. It works the opposite as well, if they fail the specific criteria, but do meet the GNG, then they are still notable. Silver  seren C 00:27, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree. WP:GNG trumps WP:Politician. The question is forgeting her political coverage does she satisfy WP:N?  RJ (talk) 17:59, 9 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep The relationship between the special notability guidelines and the GNG depends on what we want to do with respect to the specific guideline--we could choose to do it either way. In general with respect to politicians, we have held that notability under the GNG is an alternative--that one can be notable as a politician without ever having been elected to anything, or even formally been a candidate for anything, if there are sufficient substantial RSs.   This is the past has not resulted in many politician being found notable who have not been elected to a public office. Rather, it served to permit us to make articles on those who were elected, but we were having difficulty finding the otherwise necessary sources for the GNG.  Increasingly, we have been able to find sources to meet the GNG for more and more unelected people in politics--according to our practices, it is hard to argue that they cannot have articles. I have long advocated changing our practices here, and that we can simplify decision-making by accepting that some major party candidates for higher offices will almost always meet the GNG sufficiently that they can be automatically considered notable--and I think the increasing availability of sources will lead to that result. We might of course  decide otherwise--we can have whatever notability guidelines we choose to have, logical or not logical.   In this particular case, I think the GNG leads to a reasonable result--she is notable either as a publisher, a political candidate, or both.  DGG ( talk ) 01:56, 9 May 2010 (UTC).
 * Merge to Toronto mayoral election, 2010 SNGs work best when viewed as exclusion policies. We are not under any obligation to have an article on each and every thing on which we can find two reliable sources, and SNGs let us agree on what kinds of things should be covered in various categories. Since she doesn't meet WP:POLITICIAN, she shouldn't have an article based on her status as a politician. The coverage of her in relationship to "Women's Post" is largely tangential, more about the magazine than her role as publisher. The sources in the article are just press releases, and don't suffice for demonstrating notability.&mdash;Kww(talk) 02:18, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment In response to the recent expansion, I'm still going to stick with my original vote (delete or redirect/merge). Per Kww above, who says it nicely, the Keep arguments here seem to want to use coverage related to her being a politician in order to satisfy GNG -- even though that coverage still doesn't satisfy WP:POLITICIAN. This is a roundabout way of justifying inclusion. Just as WP:NOTFILM tells us whether a film really deserves its own article despite satisfying GNG, since there are too many pre-development films that receive coverage, WP:POLITICIAN tells us when someone's political coverage warrants giving them an article, since even those barely in the running receive coverage. These are higher standards for inclusion for subjects of those topics. <font face="Century Gothic"> Equazcion ( talk ) 07:02, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Weak Delete Quite difficult to decide whether to keep it or not, but apart from those references. WP:ANYBIO says that she hasn't won any awards or made a contribution world-widely recognised. Although she was a candidate in some sort of Toronto election, she only had 7% of support from the residents. I tried to link the Women's Post which is a non-notable magazine I suspect. If that article on the magazine was created, I will change my vote. Minima  c <font color="#002BB8"> ( talk ) 09:52, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Your link is blue-linked. Silver  seren C 20:06, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
 * That's a really impressive coat rack: two sentences about the magazine, with the circulation reproduced verbatim from an unaudited claim, combined with a copy of the material that you Be in Nepean also placed in this article. &mdash;Kww(talk) 20:19, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I am convinced that user e in nepean is working for the Thompson campaign, both from actions here and for other information received. This is an astroturfing job. Guy (Help!) 17:10, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
 * That article seems to also be attempting to establish notability by using coverage of Sara Thomson as a politician. If anything I'd say there's even less of a question than here that Women's Post (just created by the creator of this article) should be deleted. There's no notability for the magazine itself. <font face="Century Gothic"> Equazcion ( talk ) 20:24, 9 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Merge-per Tznkai or delete as a one event failed candidate. Off2riorob (talk) 12:30, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
 * What event? Silver  seren C 20:06, 9 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment The article has been substantially rewritten. I suggest that delete voters re-read it and reconsider their vote. Be in Nepean (talk) 19:08, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep per suggested readership of her magazine, although I have no problem with merging to any mayoral eletion related articles. Doc Quintana (talk) 22:00, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
 * [Claimed] readership of a magazine does not make its founder notable. WP:SINGLEEVENT <font face="Century Gothic"> Equazcion ( talk ) 23:00, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep per Doc above or redirect and merge to the campaign page. The fact is that she seems to meet WP:GNG by having several (at least 3 or 4 and probably more) news articles from different papers devoted specifically to her in the context of her camapaign. WP:POLITICIAN #3 specifically notes that candidates can be notable under this. I realize that this might allow a lot of local candidates to be included, though, so there's obviously some tension in accepting WP:GNG for political candidates. II  | (t - c) 22:37, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. Seems to meet WP:GNG. Horselover Frost (talk &middot; edits) 23:03, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Concur with BlackKite. Delete and salt. AGK   13:22, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Black Kite hasn't actually advanced either of those positions. He brought this nom procedurally. Note the "but" in his statement, which is an allusion to GNG. – xeno <sup style="color:black;">talk 13:26, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
 * AGK very obviously refers to the part of Black Kite's statement in which s/he advances the case for deletion. That's very, very clear. <font color="#7026DF">╟─TreasuryTag► constablewick ─╢ 13:30, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
 * The only thing in Black Kite's statement that is even close to a case for deletion is "almost certainly doesn't pass WP:POLITICIAN". I don't think anyone disagrees with this claim; however, it is not per se a case for deletion. – xeno <sup style="color:black;">talk 13:38, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry if the nomination wasn't clear. I have refactored it. Black Kite (t) (c) 14:14, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Neutral, heh. That works. You spurn both sides. :P Silver  seren C 20:17, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep. The title may be wrong as much of the coverage isn't to do with her role as a politician but as a publisher, but the fact is that enough coverage exists to meet WP:GNG by a large margin, regardless of any other guidelines. Alzarian16 (talk) 14:04, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep. I feel the coverage is over a long enough time and barely enough to keep. I'm willing to listen to other opinions on why it shouldn't be kept either. Was a bit of a toss up. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 14:44, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep per excellent improvements by editors Be in Nepean and Silver Seren. FeydHuxtable (talk) 18:01, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
 * <small class="delsort-notice">Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:06, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
 * <small class="delsort-notice">Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:07, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
 * <small class="delsort-notice">Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:07, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Those dismissing her as a failed candidate need to read the article more carefully; the election in question is still five months away, so you're gazing into a crystal ball. That said, in most cases the criterion that an unelected candidate for office needs to meet to be a legitimate article topic is that they're notable enough for other reasons that Wikipedia would still be reasonably expected to have an article about them even if they hadn't run for office. The simple reality, like it or not, is that separated from her mayoral candidacy, Sarah Thomson is not a person one would expect to find in an encyclopedia; she simply isn't a person about whom much is known (or has been written) apart from "publishes magazine of at best low-to-moderate importance; running for mayor".
 * Furthermore, all positions are not created equal; the fact that we can almost always write a legitimate article about an unsuccessful candidate for President of the United States does not mean that we can (or should) have articles about every parliamentary or congressional candidate in every individual electoral district; nor does it mean that we can or should have articles for every single candidate for mayor of a city. So the notion that there's a blanket consensus emerging to permit articles on unelected candidates simply doesn't wash; while a few offices are prominent and high-profile enough that even failed candidates are likely to be sufficiently notable, most aren't.
 * Accordingly, delete. Though certainly without prejudice against recreation in the future should she (a) win, or (b) for one reason or another (e.g. she takes off in the polls, she gets caught in a controversy, etc.) start garnering a volume of press that actually constitutes substantial coverage about her. Bearcat (talk) 19:07, 11 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep for the time being. If she turns out to be a brief blip in the news, merge this to the article about the campaign since wikipedia is not news. Arskwad (talk) 06:56, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
 * That seems like a deletion argument. WP:NOTNEWS and WP:CRYSTAL are exactly why people are arguing Sarah Thomson (politician) should be deleted.  Articles must be proven notable before inclusion.  Consensus supports the exact opposite path.  The article should be merged/deleted and if she becomes notable recreated.  RJ (talk) 22:29, 12 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment If anyone proposes deletion on Women's Post, I feel strongly towards keeping that article. I am still on the weakside of deleting Sarah Thomson (politician) though might be favorable towards a move to Sarah Whatmough-Thomson. RJ (talk) 22:41, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree with renaming this. I don't think the article should be focused around her political status, when there's other (arguably more important) things she's done. Silver  seren C 23:15, 12 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep. There is no hierarchy of notability guidelines. Each guideline is just a guideline. They only create presumptions of notability. When guidelines create conflicting presumptions in a single case they should be balanced together with common sense, as follows: in this case, on balance, the extent to which the subject passes the general notability guideline outweighs the extent to which she fails WP:POLITICIAN. --Mkativerata (talk) 21:35, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep - meets GNG. Respect the fundamentals. Thparkth (talk) 18:08, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep - does seem to meet the general notability guideline, especially as shown by the expansion. Regards,    A rbitrarily 0    ( talk ) 18:30, 15 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.