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. j⚛e decker ^talk 13:58, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Stephanie Peacock[edit]

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

Fails WP:NPOL. Insufficient citations that have the article topic as their subject. Notability is not inherited. See also background discussion relevant to this article at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Politics_of_the_United_Kingdom#New_set_of_articles_on_minor_Labour_politicians_needing_review.2Fimprovement and associated AfDs: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Adrian Heald, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alex Sobel, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Karin Smyth and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jeff Smith (British politician). Bondegezou (talk) 08:51, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Media coverage regarding the subject's personal life falls under WP:NOTINHERITED. Her own achievements at this point fail the WP:POLITICIAN criteria. AllyD (talk) 10:49, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:35, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:35, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Under WP:NPOL, a person does not qualify for a Wikipedia article just for being an as-yet-unelected candidate in a future election — if you cannot credibly source that they were already notable enough for a Wikipedia article under a different inclusion criterion before they were named a candidate, then they do not become notable enough for a Wikipedia article until they win the election. And needless to say, no strong evidence of preexisting notability has been demonstrated here — virtually all of the coverage is about either her candidacy (failing WP:ROUTINE) or her relationship with somebody else (failing WP:NOTINHERITED). Bearcat (talk) 20:44, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete generally agree with above except there may be a few more sources here, still not seeing Peacock as a subject notable in her own right.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 23:31, 29 September 2014 (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.