Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nikki Kaye

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/redirect. Tan ǀ 39 23:07, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nikki Kaye

Fails WP:BIO which states that candidates for political office are not notable. Insufficient other grounds for notability (athletics achievements are only at a regional level). Notwithstanding WP:OTHER, neutrality requires that we treat candidates in this election consistently: Incumbents or past incumbets have articles, and those who fail notability are redirected to Candidates in the New Zealand general election 2008 by electorate dramatic (talk) 21:35, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions.

Redirect as suggested by dramatic. This has the advantage that if she wins the seat (which appears unlikely given the current majority) we have a basic article ready to go.-gadfium 22:42, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

delete. the only link to NK is from the page we're talking about anyway, and this is the kind of thing we need to crack down on. let's not make wikipedia carry the can because party people think they're important or want a free ad. not in an election year. this is the test case. Plan 8 (talk) 22:52, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The Herald article goes some way towards evidence of notability, but as a profile of a political candidate about to compete it seems transitional, and more indicative of the notability of the seat and the competition for it than this particular candidate. It says nothing of interest about her except that she's running, which isn't evidence of notability. Can't find any other articles on Google or GNews. Ryan Paddy (talk) 22:35, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Evil Spartan (talk) 00:25, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect NN per WP:POLITICIAN, WP:ATHLETE. Restore if elected. —97198 talk 06:44, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:25, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, there is discussion of whether non-notable candidates should be deleted or redirected to a listing on the listing's talk page. Ryan Paddy (talk) 20:37, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. She's received pretty extensive coverage in The New Zealand Herald, particularly in an article from May 4, 2008 titled "Central battle." She's also been covered in The National Business Review. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Benjaminx (talk • contribs) 05:57, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I think these articles are more indicative of the notability of the seat she's running for than herself. Ryan Paddy (talk) 20:34, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment Nevertheless, the articles show that Kaye has achieved "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject," as the articles are about her, and not about the seat, so she meets the general notability guidelines, WP:POLITICIAN aside. Benjaminx (talk) 22:06, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment The coverage doesn't seem that significant to me. It's very fluffy, there's nothing in it that indicates she's notable except as a political candidate, and it seems like passing news. Ryan Paddy (talk) 22:24, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. It doesn't matter if the coverage focusses on her rather than the seat, she's only getting the coverage because she's a candidate. Notability is not temporary, and if she loses, she will not be notable. --Helenalex (talk) 00:57, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment That guideline states that "If a subject has met the general notability guideline, there is no need to show continual coverage or interest in the topic." So once notable, always notable. Benjaminx (talk) 01:07, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

it's an article about a candidate for parliament. three of these have already been deleted this week. why is this different? because the candidate for auckland central gets mentioned in the main auckland daily? that's pretty sketchy reasoning. Primal (talk) 03:09, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Exactly. It's an article about her candidacy, and candidacy is not notable. It's one of those exceptions cases where unreasoned application of the GNG is inappropriate. WP:Common sense applies here. Ryan Paddy (talk) 07:32, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It's an article about her, and she's notable because she's running for office. She's clearly notable right now, and the only argument for deletion is that she won't be notable at some time in the future, but like I said, Notability is not temporary. Benjaminx (talk) 14:25, 29 July 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.