Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lucy Powell

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. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 22:12, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lucy Powell

One of many articles that has crept into Wikipedia on British prospective parliamentary candidates. WP:POLITICIAN does not attribute notability to candidates, and there is no evidence of "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject of the article". I42 (talk) 22:22, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 22:23, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 22:23, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as it fails WP:POLITICIAN. Even the Guardian's biography could find enough about her to write a full piece, so pads it out with stuff about the constituency she might one day represent. Nev1 (talk) 22:43, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:07, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep with 189 google ~~news~~ refs as Director of UK's main pro-EU campaigning organisation [1] and 40 google news refs [2] - MikeHobday (talk) 06:28, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Candidacy for the UK Parliament isn't notable, frequent media appearances as head of the most prominent pro-EU campaigning organisation of its time is. Might be worth re-writing the article to put the emphasis on the thing she is most noted for. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 07:23, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I would argue for inclusion of this article and all other article regarding parliamentary candidates for reasons outlined here ZTomane1 (talk) 22:28, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - better claim to notability than most of the PPCs whose articles have been nominated for deletion. As former director of Britain in Europe she was sometimes quoted in the media, and her blog on the Guardian website gets some hits, but there seems to be very little coverage with any substantial information about her. As a result, I don't see the case for notability. Warofdreams talk 02:20, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
According to WP:BIO, "If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be needed to prove notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may not be sufficient to establish notability." As Warofdreams says, independent coverage is not substantial, but I'd suggest there are multiple independent sources. Perhaps we should focus on what "multiple independent" means? MikeHobday (talk) 18:48, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable non-elected candidate. If/when she is elected the article can be created. doktorb _words^deeds 05:51, 15 April 2009 (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.