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 delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:30, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kathryn Smith[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Losing politician with a detailed drink driving conviction attached to it, what with the so called controversy section and the drink driving section being bigger than her quite limited political notability, I think there are WP:BLP issues coupled with undue weight and a general limited notability I think the wikipedia and the world and the subject are better of without this BLP. Off2riorob (talk) 01:12, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The subject has been a candidate for Parliament and has service in local government but neither is an automatic foundation of notability. I detect no other reason for notability; her criminal conviction seems only to have merited attention because of her position as a Parliamentary candidate. Hence she is not notable. Sam Blacketer (talk) 01:18, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I started this article for several reasons. Firstly the conviction is notable (previous discussions have deemed drink driving convictions by politicians especially notable and worthy of their own category). When considering the conviction one has to consider the circumstances too - she was not just caught drink driving but also crashed the vehicle whilst more than double the drink drive limit and was arrested. This notability is heightened by the timing of the event, occurring just days before the General Election and as a result there has been significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] One should consider that it wasn't just any seat being contested, but a key marginal, which had already received significant national coverage [6] in part due to the notability of the third placed candidate Anna Arrowsmith and sources seem to suggest the incident had a significant impact on the outcome of the contest. On top of this there's the lengthy legal process and change of plea etc. As others have said there is also Smith's lengthy career in local government/politics, with the main notable aspect of that being her controversial role in selecting the Labour candidate for the 2000 London Mayoral Election through denying individual votes to 50,000 co-operative party members (a large amount of coverage of this also). Finally her senior role at the Co-operative bank again adds to notability. I believe that this combined with everything else and coverage going back over a decade means Smith meets general notability criteria. We're not just looking at someone known for one thing either due to the voting controversy and I do take issue with the above use of the term "so called" as the incident was clearly controversial at the time (even significant concern in the Guardian!)[7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13]. Update, also worth noting that Smith was suspended by Labour for bringing the party into disrepute (they didn't even do this for some of those involved in the expenses scandal), and finally for anyone with a sense of humour there's also the issue of name of the road where the crash occurred --Shakehandsman (talk) 02:25, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Seems to be of marginally confirmed notability independent of the drunk driving. Edison (talk) 03:12, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - pretty clear case of WP:BLP1E. She's only 'notable' for the drink-driving (her political career wouldn't be enough for an article by itself), as that's the only context in which she's received significant coverage; but that's not enough grounds for notability by our standards. Keeping this article would, I believe, be a violation of WP:BLP. Robofish (talk) 12:39, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I can't see evidence of notability from the election thing, as the table given wouldn't be 'significant coverage'. Therefore, it does seem like someone known just for one event, viz. the drink-driving - and this is exactly what BLP1E is designed to cover. Unless evidence of notability for other events could be found, then this is inappropriate. Chzz ► 15:19, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've added some more sources for the London Mayoral voting controversy as one of the Guardian links was missing. It even made one paper's review of the year, although being in 1999 there's obviously not quite as much material online as with more recent stories.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Shakehandsman (talk • contribs)

Delete Classic, one-event made biography, made worse by the fact that the focus on the one event violates WP:BLP. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nwlaw63 (talk • contribs) 20:35, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:41, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:41, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Obvious case of BLP1E... does not meet WP:NOTABILITY standards. — Coffee // have a cup // essay // 05:58, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete see WP:POLITICIAN - Councillor = NN; failed Parliamentary candidate - NN; drunk driver = NN; Nothing notable. Peterkingiron (talk) 12:17, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not notable as a politician, drink driving conviction does not make a non-notable person notable. Warofdreams talk 10:39, 28 January 2011 (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.