Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jayne Innes

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. Kurykh 00:28, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jayne Innes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

Delete Yet another parliamentary candidate, one of thousands. Wikipedia is not a listing of parliamentary candidate biographies. Timrollpickering 13:19, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete If we let this one stay then we'll have tens of thousands of articles on people who's only claim to fame is that they have been candidates for this and that. Minimum standard should to be actually getting elected. Galloglass 14:03, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. I'd think that a parliamentary candidate representing the Labour Party would meet the old-fashioned professor test. The article is well-sourced, with sources establishing notability (as I judge it). —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 00:45, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• • Note: This was mistakenly categorized in "Fiction and the arts". I've recategorized it under Biography. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 00:47, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reply: Josiah, please see my assessment below of the sources. The sources support hardly any of the article, and relate only tangentially to her. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:56, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well we have several thousand candidates each election, none of which we consider notable if they do not get elected. Even standing for one of the three main parties does not seem to justify any notability. As TRP has said above, Wiki is not a candidates biography website. Galloglass 14:51, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong delete. In general, we don't regard being a parliamentary candidate as notable: she'll be notable if she wins the seat, but since it looks a bit marginal, that's by no means certain. The article suggests is a glimmer of evidence that she may be a little more significant than other candidates, having been a member of the Labour Party's policy forum. The National Policy Forum isn't all that powerful, so I wouldn't rate it as particularly significant, but it just might be an indication of a wider role in the party; if she turned out to have had a truly significant role within the party, I could reconsider my !vote, but so far I don't see any evidence of that.
  The references provided look impressive until studied: the first is a report about her predecessor, which doesn't even mention Innes; the second is about the man who beat her in Birmingham, and doesn't mention her my name; the third is a National Policy Forum document which lists her at the end as one of the hundred-plus members of the forum; the fourth is about her husband, and again doesn't mention her by name.
  WP:N requires non-trivial coverage in multiple reliable sources, but all we have here is one lone instance of her name in a list of over a hundred people at the end of a very long document. Since she clearly fails both WP:BIO and WP:N, this looks to me like a strong delete, even without considering our general wariness of article on election candiates. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:54, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, standing for office is not notable and there is nothing else here that makes a claim to notability. If Jayne is ever successful the article can be recreated. Nuttah68 11:30, 20 August 2007 (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.