- 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. --MelanieN (talk) 22:08, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Louise Baldock (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Per email request, with the rational "Subject fails to meet the relevant notability guideline (WP:NPOL)" Mdann52 (talk) 17:42, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Keep - After a quick sniff; I'm seeing 134 distinct news mentions. That would seem to clear WP:GNG. NickCT (talk) 17:55, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Fails WP:NPOL. Yes, there are distinct news mentions of her, but they all relate to her career in politics. In other words, you could get a similar amount of coverage for any candidate who stood at the 2015 General Election, simply because the (local) press will cover any story about the local candidates. If this individual had other coverage outside of politics, then I'd lean towards a keep. The article as it stands is a collection of non-notable incidents in an otherwise ordinary person's life (battle on Twitter, someone against the bedroom tax, various local campaigns, etc). Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 18:12, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
-
- Yes, I appreicate that GNG beats NPOL (for example, Lance Armstrong could be deleted by saying he fails NPOL), but this individual's coverage is exclusive to her politicial career with plenty of GHits for news coverage. Also standing in the same election were (to name two) Ted Strike and Drew Dunning with 37 and 9 distinct news stories each. The same arguement could be applied to either of these, but by our standards, they would both be non-notable. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 19:19, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- @Lugnuts: - The same argument could be applied, if 37 or 9 were equal to 134. ;-) <snark intended>
- But seriously, I appreciate what you're saying. It just strikes me that she's got a lot of mentions. I'm not really willing to take the time to read into why she has so many mentions, so I think my support remains "weak". NickCT (talk) 19:46, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. APerson (talk!) 20:08, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Louise Baldock: I have not done an edit before, I hope this works. If I have done it incorrectly then please have my permission to tidy it up. As the subject of this article I would like to see it deleted. I understand the original author also made a request for deletion which seems to have disappeared. There were 3971 candidates standing in the 2015 General Election, most of
them do not have wiki page, and an unsuccessful candidate is surely not notable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LouiseBaldock (talk • contribs) 12:53, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:20, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:20, 23 May 2015 (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.