- 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. So Why 11:35, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
Elaine Bagshaw
- Elaine Bagshaw ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Doesn't meet WP:GNG or WP:NPOL. Prod was declined because she is a member of the Liberal Democrat's Federal Board. I don't see that being on yhe board of a minor political party meets notability. Coverage is what you would expect for any political candidate. Boleyn ( talk) 05:52, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. ʍaɦʋɛօtʍ ( talk) 09:13, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. ʍaɦʋɛօtʍ ( talk) 09:13, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
- Delete Per WP:NPOL. All coverage of Bagshaw relates to her failed political candidacies. There is nothing in national media or no in-depth profiles. AusLondonder ( talk) 18:12, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
- Delete. Being on the organizational board of a political party is not an automatic notability freebie in the absence of enough reliable source coverage about her work in that role to clear WP:GNG, and being a non-winning candidate for parliament is not a notability criterion at all. But the sourcing present here isn't adequate, consisting mainly of local pennysavers and her political party's own internal newsletter — and she isn't the subject of any of the few sources that actually count for anything toward GNG, but merely has her existence namechecked in coverage that isn't about her. This is not the type of sourcing that it takes to get someone into Wikipedia for the notability claim that's been provided here. Bearcat ( talk) 15:30, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
- 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.
- 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. So Why 11:35, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
Elaine Bagshaw
- Elaine Bagshaw ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Doesn't meet WP:GNG or WP:NPOL. Prod was declined because she is a member of the Liberal Democrat's Federal Board. I don't see that being on yhe board of a minor political party meets notability. Coverage is what you would expect for any political candidate. Boleyn ( talk) 05:52, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. ʍaɦʋɛօtʍ ( talk) 09:13, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. ʍaɦʋɛօtʍ ( talk) 09:13, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
- Delete Per WP:NPOL. All coverage of Bagshaw relates to her failed political candidacies. There is nothing in national media or no in-depth profiles. AusLondonder ( talk) 18:12, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
- Delete. Being on the organizational board of a political party is not an automatic notability freebie in the absence of enough reliable source coverage about her work in that role to clear WP:GNG, and being a non-winning candidate for parliament is not a notability criterion at all. But the sourcing present here isn't adequate, consisting mainly of local pennysavers and her political party's own internal newsletter — and she isn't the subject of any of the few sources that actually count for anything toward GNG, but merely has her existence namechecked in coverage that isn't about her. This is not the type of sourcing that it takes to get someone into Wikipedia for the notability claim that's been provided here. Bearcat ( talk) 15:30, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
- 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.