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 to Haltemprice and Howden by-election, 2008. Not enough significant coverage.. Tan | 39 19:51, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Shan Oakes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Previous Speedy and Prod both contested. Candidates for elections are not normally considered notable in their own right and there is no reason to expect Ms Oakes will win the Haltemprice by-election. PamD in removing the PROD notice argued "the circumstances of this election make the two candidates standing against Conservatives for established parties unusually notable". However, none of the citations in the article constitute substantial, independent, reliable source coverage of Ms Oakes, so there's no evidence here yet of this claimed unusual notability. Bondegezou (talk) 13:40, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I disagree: I think it is notable given the huge current interest in the Green Party being the only major party to oppose the Conservatives in this election. I would suggest leaving it a couple of days, by which time I'm sure it will be possible to cite contemporary national press coverage. e.g. there is already: http://www.politics.co.uk/news/opinion-former-index/legal-and-constitutional/green-party-runs-against-davis-$1229110.htm
  (KJL)
  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 155.245.50.119 (talk) 16:47, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • While that article is an improvement on what's currently cited, it's still hardly about Shan Oakes and has material best covered in the Haltemprice and Howden by-election, 2008 article rather than in a separate article. Bondegezou (talk) 17:15, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Not notable.Russian Textiles (talk) 16:41, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. She is non-notable. The politics.co.uk refers to her, but only as a passing reference and in no way asserts her notability. Shovon (talk) 18:19, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. See Elizabeth Shenton for precedent. —Wereon (talk) 21:18, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a link to the Elizabeth Shenton deletion discussion if anyone is interested. Road Wizard (talk) 23:19, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Delete. No clear evidence of notability in the article; while she would obviously be notable if she wins the election, that doesn't seem particularly likely to happen. I note, however, that our article on the Haltemprice and Howden by-election, 2008 links to articles on ten of the candidates, some of whom seem even less notable than her... Terraxos (talk) 01:52, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • All the other candidates with pages, as far as I can see, are notable for other reasons. Oakes' page, in contrast, was created specifically for the by-election. —Wereon (talk) 02:27, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Indeed. The other candidates with articles were notable prior to this by-election, with the possible exception of Mad Cow-Girl. However, if you think there are any other articles that are not notable, then you should start AfDs for those articles. Bondegezou (talk) 11:27, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The Haltemprice by-election itself is highly notable for its' odd circumstance and the Green campaign is notable for it being the major credible opponent to David Davis. The ongoing growth in media coverage of Ms Oakes' campaign suggests she will become amongst the best known of British green politicians. GullibleKit (talk) 19:30, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Being an electoral candidate is not in itself notable. To become a candidate in the UK you need signatures from ten members of the public and a small amount of money to pay a deposit - hardly the best credentials for justifying an article on Wikipedia. If she later becomes "the best known of British green politicians" as suggested by GullibleKit then an article could perhaps be reconsidered on those grounds when this status is achieved. Wikipedia cannot support articles on the grounds of potential future notability. Road Wizard (talk) 20:05, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is precedent of articles being created for candidates in notable elections. For example, Winston McKenzie, the independent London Mayoral candidate. GullibleKit (talk) 00:29, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Your comments about the ease of standing and not supporting "articles on the grounds of potential future notability" are true and if she were an independent I would vote Delete. But these valid points don't invalidate her notability as the democratically chosen candidate of the fourth largest political party in an election where the other main players are absent.--Richardob (talk) 00:39, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • As was predicted by others, new media sources have indeed emerged, including a New Statesman article Greens: We're civil liberties party which says a great deal about the Greens and their candidate. --Richardob (talk) 21:28, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • While the publication of new sources is useful, an opinion piece by a Green party member about the Green party in a publication that explicitly points out that the article is written by a Green party member is not the most reliable of sources. As referred to in WP:RS, "great care must be taken to distinguish news reporting from opinion pieces. Opinion pieces are only reliable for statements as to the opinion of their authors, not for statements of fact. When citing opinion pieces from newspapers or other mainstream news sources, in-text attribution should be given. When adding contentious biographical material about living persons that relies upon news organizations, only material from high-quality news organizations should be used." Road Wizard (talk) 22:06, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • You're right, it is indeed an opinion piece and its conclusions should not be taken as factual. But the point is, we know Shan Oakes isn't fictitious (from several reliable independent news sources including the BBC) and what this article provides is further evidence of her notability as someone newsworthy enough to be discussed in an independent news source. New Statesman isn't Indymedia. It is a weekly, well respected current affairs magazine. --Richardob (talk) 23:48, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • The New Statesman article is not about Ms Oakes: it is about the Green Party's campaign in the seat and may be a useful reference for the by-election article, but it says basically nothing about Ms Oakes. Without more independent, reliable source articles about Ms Oakes, I don't see that she is notable in her own right, separate to coverage of the Greens' campaign in the by-election article.Bondegezou (talk) 16:08, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Wikipedia isn't the voice of The Establishment. It is a democratic source of independent encyclopedic knowledge. For this reason alone I would be surprised if this article were deleted. The fourth largest political party has placed a candidate in an election in which the others (Lib Dems and Labour) are absent. Where do I come to discover an unbiased biography of an increasingly notable woman who is heading this political development and happens not to be the daughter of a Lord or rich businessman; a Princess, or celebrity? I think it is Wikipedia. --Richardob (talk) 00:28, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • But the basic principle of notability for biographical articles is the presence of reliable source articles about a person. References in the article are either not reliable (her own blog, Green Party site) or have only fleeting references to Oakes. (And Greens being the fourth largest political party is debatable. On some criteria, that would be the SNP, DUP or UKIP.) Bondegezou (talk) 07:14, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Expanding on my last point, in terms of votes at the last UK General Election, the Greens were 6th, behind the SNP and UKIP, and only just ahead of the DUP. In terms of Commons representation, the Greens have no MPs while the SNP and DUP and others do. In the Lords, UKIP are represented and the Greens aren't. Among MEPs, the Greens are 5th, behind UKIP. The Greens are not the "fourth largest political party". Bondegezou (talk) 07:47, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Current Parliamentary composition indicates party's positions in 2005. By most recent elections, Greens were 3rd in Henley. GullibleKit (talk) 10:11, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Well, if you look at that result, you will probably say that Labour Party is the fifth largest party in England! Shovon (talk) 16:42, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • We can wait and see the position of New Labour after the next general election, I'm not speculating. GullibleKit (talk) 21:59, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • In the latest national opinion poll, from ComRes, which probably says more than a single by-election, the Greens are 8th, behind UKIP, SNP, BNP and 'others', although the difference between 4th and 9th place is not statistically significant. Bondegezou (talk) 22:56, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep Usually I am the first to ask for deletions for all failed non-notable candidates, but this is slightly more complex. Broadly speaking, Shan is non-notable, and this article should be deleted. But not only is this candidature one for the only mainstream party bar the Conservatives, itself notable, but Shan is on the European Parliamentary candidature list, so I am torn between the "Elizabeth Shenton" position (which was a clear delete) and this, where it is a bit more borderline. doktorb _words^deeds 08:56, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I recognise this is an unusual by-election, but I don't see much notability arising from Ms Shan being a Green candidate for the Euro-constituency of Yorkshire & Humber: there is little to suggest that she will get in at the next Euro-election. What I suggest is, rather than arguing back and forth about the notability of particular candidacies, we focus on the core definition of Wikipedia biography notability, namely multiple reliable source articles about the individual. Such has yet to be provided for Ms Shan. Bondegezou (talk) 11:48, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - with the intention of revisiting on 11th July to see how notable she appears to be after the election result and subsequent coverage. She is the only mainstream party candidate standing against Davis, and likely to get increasing medai coverage in next 2 weeks. I know that WP:Other stuff exists is no argument, but considering the amount of trivial, non-referenced, unencyclopedic stuff which is out there it seems harsh to delete this serious article at this stage. PamD (talk) 21:25, 29 June 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.