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The result was Nomination withdrawn. gadfium

Angeline Greensill

[edit]

AfDs for this article:

While Ms Greensill is stated on the talk page to have other reasons for notability, these are not given in the article. So as the article stands the only reason for notability is candidacy in the up-coming election. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 02:37, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. — Beeswaxcandle (talk) 02:37, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thats a fair statement, we are updating it now: Ms Greensill has been at the forefront of Maori politics, land protests and environmental action for many years. Her contribution to the intellectual debates between Maori land & water guardians and the Crown/Government have been notable, with many associating Angeline’s lifelong work alongside that of her late mother, Eva Rickard. Angeline was the co-leader of the Mana Maori Movement, which was called into recess so that the combined efforts of that party could be utilised in the founding and promoting of the Maori Party. And since the Maori Party is being seen as a pivitol player in the upcoming election giving the public access to a candidate who is part of a party could make or break the next government is VERY important.

In addition:

The page is important to the new zealand election
The page is newly created to capture the next three months up to the election
The page is of public interest and has a place in an encyclopedia
On fairness grounds all candidates in a public election have the right to have a public profile in wikipedia so long as they abide by the rules

Hope this helps to confirm the importance and notability of this entry. Atutahi (talk) 05:16, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Repeating someone else's bullet points from the talk page does not help your case. Also, references to third-party sources are needed to verify the notability claims beyond her candidacy. Wikipedia is not the forum for "giving the public access to a candidate". Beeswaxcandle (talk) 06:05, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - for consistency. The first two bullet points above condemn the article as spam. For the third point, public interest is not a measure of appropriateness for Wikipedia except to the extent where it is demonstrated by extensive independent coverage. On the last point, we do have consisistency: No articles are allowed to primarily promote a candidate for an upcoming election. Articles on incumbent or past MPs should cover their political career to date. Any electioneering material ought to be deleted, and the only grounds for specifically mentioning their candidacy in the next election would be details such as a change or renaming of their electorate. If this was a genuine attempt to write about Angeline as a notable New Zealander, mention of her candidacy would be limited to a single line at the end. IMO she is marginally notable - the raglan golf course dispute was a very big news story and significant in the history of Māori land and Treaty issues, but do we even have an article on it? dramatic (talk) 08:43, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Beeswaxcandle I agree that category is misleading, I have removed it. Atutahi (talk) 05:50, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kia ora all - Beeswaxcandle (and others) just wanted to get your feedback on the piece now, we have now included only independent sources from Newspapers and TV and have included her notability in other areas (i.e. pivotal in getting tribal land returned to her people). It is important also to remember that in Maori communities her notability is unquestioned. This is continually an issue which we (Maori) fight for, to have our people, our knowledge and our perspectives included in public discourse, by negating her efforts on these grounds Te Ao Maori continues to be undermined. I would just hate to see that continued here in Wikipedia, and no doubt if more Maori were editing these Wikis this would not be an issue but the fact is that few do, something at least our whanau are trying to help with.

With this in mind I believe that the article now meets the primary notability criterion of "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject."
BTW, I do appreciate this process, peer-reviewed articles are definitely valuable. Many thanks for your korero. Atutahi (talk) 08:28, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
talk I agree with your suggestion that her candidacy should only be mentioned as an aside, have cleared that up. Atutahi (talk) 09:29, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Help - I'd love to get additional support from some kind soul to out there to help ensure this article remains (as I believe her accomplishments are valuable and noteworthy), while meeting the standards and requirements of Wikipedia. Looking forward to your replies. Oh, am also confused as to where I should be writing these messages, I note that it should be on the articles talk page but see much of the communication is taking place here. So apologies in advance if I'm writing in the wrong place. Kia ora ano! Atutahi (talk) 09:59, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Article is looking good and wiki'd. Looks to be passing WP:N, WP:V, WP:BIO and is following policy in WP:POV.--Pmedema (talk) 23:58, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nomination for Deletion Withdrawn Atutahi has made a considerable number of improvements and the concerns I had have mostly been removed. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 05:09, 7 September 2008 (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.