Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Siobhan Benita


 * 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 on the issue of "keep vs delete" and no consensus on the issue of merging. That can be discussed on the article's talk page. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:35, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Siobhan Benita

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

Came fifth in 2012 Mayoral election: unsuccessful candidates are not notable under WP:POLITICIAN. Only one citation in her article is not about her campaign in the election. Bondegezou (talk) 08:30, 5 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep, many independent sources with her as primary topic are available. The guideline actually says that unsuccessful candidates are not notable if they don't meet the primary notability guideline, i.e. coverage in sources. - filelake shoe &#xF0F6;  08:43, 5 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep, the GNG requires the existence of reliable sources, not that they be in the article already, desirable though that is. Benita is sufficiently well sourced to pass this test easily, election or not. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:26, 5 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep due to "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject of the article". A quick search uncovered profiles on the BBC website and UK national newspapers such as The Independent, The Guardian and The Telegraph. --Wavehunter (talk) 13:19, 5 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep Clearly passes notability guidelines (WP:POLITICIAN) - coverage in reliable news sources. Because of the coverage of the individual in reliable sources, the nominator's rationale is incorrect - unsuccessful candidates are not notable if they don't pass WP:GNG - and Benita clearly meets the general notability guideline. → B  music  ian  14:20, 5 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment There were profiles of all the candidates in the London mayoral election, as there are often profiles of losing candidates in various elections around the world. The sources described above pertain purely to her role in the campaign for that election. Thus, any useful content in this article can be merged to London mayoral election, 2012. WP:POLITICIAN is a brief statement, so let me go through the underlying rationale. Individuals above cite WP:GNG, which includes this note: "Editors may reach a consensus that although a topic meets this criterion, it is not appropriate for a stand-alone article. For example, such an article may violate what Wikipedia is not". OK, so let us consider WP:NOT, in particular WP:NOTNEWS is useful guidance here: I quote, "Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of persons and events. While news coverage can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics, most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion." I see no enduring notability for Mrs Benita. There's also, critically, "Who's who. Even when an event is notable, individuals involved in it may not be. Unless news coverage of an individual goes beyond the context of a single event, our coverage of that individual should be limited to the article about that event, in proportion to their importance to the overall topic." The news coverage of Mrs Benita is entirely within the context of a single event, the London mayoral election, 2012, ergo our coverage of her should "be limited to the article about that event". Bondegezou (talk) 15:40, 5 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep Our editing policy indicates that we should keep material with this level of notability. Warden (talk) 17:07, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep The existence of such profiles and articles indicates that our traditional limitation to successfulcandidates is unduly restricted. How far we should go depends on the political system and the importance of the jurisdiction. This is safely within it, as will be the case for all very large cities.  DGG ( talk ) 23:09, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 02:51, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 02:52, 6 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment In reply to Colonel Warden, I do not see the applicability of WP:PRESERVE here. Any material about this individual can be moved to London mayoral election, 2012 in keeping with WP:PRESERVE. In reply to DGG, while I accept the London mayoral contest is an important one, I struggle to see how the argument supports keeping a candidate who came 5th with 3.8% of the vote. In reply to others, I would appreciate discussion of WP:NOTNEWS, which suggests that our coverage of her should "be limited to the article about that event". Finally, can I refer everyone to a related AfD on another of the losing candidates: Articles for deletion/Carlos Cortiglia. Bondegezou (talk) 06:57, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
 * WP:PRESERVE is very relevant because it is disruptive to wantonly destroy satisfactory and informative material such as this. It seems that you do intend that we retain some of this material and so deletion is out of the question because our licensing policy mandates that we keep the edit history.  The name of the candidate is useful for searching and so the worst case here is that we would merge into an article about the election.  But merger is not deletion - see WP:MAD.  With deletion eliminated as a possibility, this is then a matter of ordinary editing.  I myself prefer that the article be maintained with the current structure because it seems most sensible to cover topics under their natural title, per WP:COMMONNAME.  Omnibus articles are unsatisfactory because they are too large for modern devices such as smartphones.  Conventional encyclopedia commonly have very brief entries for many topics and we should not be afraid to do the same - enough is as good as a feast. Warden (talk) 07:59, 6 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Merge to London mayoral election, 2012 per WP:ONEEVENT and long standing convention that simply being an unsuccessful candidate is not sufficient for notability. Timrollpickering (talk) 09:42, 6 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Merge This should never have been proposed for AfD; the only question is whether the content should be merged or kept as a separate article. By usual policy, a merge is indicated, unless Benita continues to be newsworthy beyond the election aftermath. --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:21, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Extremely obvious merge here, unless there's some argument that she has been proven to be notable for anything other than that one thing which is already covered elsewhere. DreamGuy (talk) 02:00, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Merge to the election article. Having failed to be elected she fails to meet WP:POLITICIAN, but who she is (and the other failed candidates are) clearly belojngs in the election article.  Peterkingiron (talk) 15:43, 12 May 2012 (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.