Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Penny Ackery

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. ✗plicit 03:16, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Penny Ackery

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Advertorialized WP:BLP of a person notable only as an as yet non-winning candidate in a future election. As always, Wikipedia is not a free public relations platform for aspiring political candidates to repost their campaign literature -- the notability test at WP:NPOL is holding a notable political office, not just running for one, and to qualify for inclusion a candidate must either (a) show that they already had preexisting notability for other reasons that would already have gotten them into Wikipedia anyway (e.g. Cynthia Nixon), or (b) demonstrate a credible reason why their candidacy should be treated as much, much more special than everybody else's candidacies, in some way that would pass the ten year test for enduring significance even if she loses (e.g. Christine O'Donnell). But this passes neither of those tests, is written very much more like a campaign brochure ("Ackery will provide an independent voice in contrast to the incumbent") than a properly neutral and objective encyclopedia article, and is referenced to a mix of primary sources that aren't support for notability at all, glancing namechecks of her existence in sources that aren't about her in any non-trivial sense, and purely routine and run of the mill campaign coverage of a type and volume that every candidate in every election everywhere can always show. Nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt her from having to have a much stronger basis for enduring permanent notability than just declaring her candidacy in a future election. Bearcat (talk) 21:49, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 21:49, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 21:49, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:27, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NPOL. Seems like clear WP:PROMO. KidAd • SPEAK 19:38, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Seems like WP:TOOSOON to meet WP:NPOL. -Kj cheetham (talk) 20:36, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not a tool for marketing a political candidate. Furthermore, the article is partially a coatrack for negative comments about the incumbent member for Hume. The article subject fails to meet the notability criteria for politicians, because she has not been elected to office. She also fails to meet the more general notability criteria for people. Chrisclear (talk) 13:52, 18 November 2021 (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.