Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sarah Thomson (politician)

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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)[reply]

Sarah Thomson (politician)

[edit]
Sarah Thomson (politician) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

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)[reply]

  • 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". –xenotalk 21:17, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
    Does the article also fail WP:GNG? –xenotalk 21:20, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    I think you (or perhaps I) misunderstand the hierarchy of notability guidelines. –xenotalk 21:35, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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] –xenotalk 21:42, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is some very limited pre-2010 coverage [1] that mentions her as publisher of Women's Post (though I've never heard of the sources). –xenotalk 21:35, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
    I am leaning merge per Tznkai below, but could you explain how GNG is not satisfied? –xenotalk 21:38, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    Changed to just Merge. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:49, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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_(Canadian_politician)#2003_Mayoral_campaign. 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
Please take another look. SilverserenC 23:45, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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. Equazcion (talk) 21:55, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Then please do take another look, as the article has been expanded. I am also still working on it. SilverserenC 23:45, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Can you explain how she fails WP:GNG? SilverserenC 23:45, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
A magazine with 300,000 readers is hardly "low-notability". SilverserenC 23:45, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, she is founder and CEO of Women's Post. SilverserenC 23:45, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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. SilverserenC 00:27, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
  • 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).[reply]
  • 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.—Kww(talk) 02:18, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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. Equazcion (talk) 07:02, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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. Minimac (talk) 09:52, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Your link is blue-linked. SilverserenC 20:06, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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 youBe in Nepean also placed in this article. —Kww(talk) 20:19, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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. Equazcion (talk) 20:24, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What event? SilverserenC 20:06, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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. SilverserenC 23:15, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Sarah_Thomson_(politician)&oldid=1221049838"