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 keep. JForget 00:37, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Emily Benn (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

STRONG DELETE Fails all wiki criteria for includes. No notability. Promotional page. Editing done by SPA --WikiKing2012 (talk) 20:40, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- -SpacemanSpiff^{Calvin‡Hobbes} 21:02, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: this nomination was incomplete (missing steps 2 and 3). It is fixed now. Tim Song (talk) 21:03, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Passes the basic criteria. The JPS^{talk to me} 21:03, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep legitimate Candidate for a national parliament, several secondary sources Wefa (talk) 21:09, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete If every candidate standing for parliament was to have a wiki page - the site would be overloaded and its credibility destroyed. Just because she's standing does not mean she is notable for inclusion. --WikiKing2012 (talk) 21:11, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, this is exactly the situation we have with US congressional candidates. Furthermore, Benn is not *any* candidate - she secured the nomination of a major party (indeed, the current majority party). Wefa

(Oh, and while we are at it, WikiKing2012, would you please stop "voting" multiple times? It is annoying and confuses the casual reader.) Wefa (talk) 21:45, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE User:WikiKing2012 has been indef-blocked as a sockpuppet of User:BirminghamAV. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/BirminghamAV/Archive for details. I am strinking the second !vote. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 21:29, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep. Mere candidacy for Parliament is not a claim to notability, nor is a famous grandfather. However, holding the record for youngest Labour Parliamentary candidate is. Even so, the article needs heavy pruning to lose its promotional tone. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 21:12, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep a major party candidate for a national legislature should be regarded as notable if they win formal nomination or whatever the procedure may be. In the campaign, they'll have as much coverage as the winner, and that's almost always enough for the GNG. DGG (talk) 03:43, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as per above arguments. --Merovingian (T, C, L) 21:30, 5 August 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.