Login
Login

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kristina Calhoun

{{Delrevafd|date=2011 September 10}}

: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 redirect to Yukon Green Party. There is a clear consensus that Calhoun does not warrant an article: the consensus is that the coverage in reliable sources is not sufficient, and that being the interim (or even substantive) leader of a provincial political party does not confer inherent notability. Delete !voters have not put forward any concerns with the redirect or merge options. Accordingly, the outcome is a redirect to Yukon Green Party. If there is any mergeable content, the page history is there. Please attribute it properly. Mkativerata (talk) 20:35, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

=[[Kristina Calhoun]]=

:{{la|Kristina Calhoun}} – (View AfDView log)

:({{Find sources|Kristina Calhoun}})

Fails WP:POLITICIAN, she is only the interim leader of a new party, which has yet to see its popularity. She is also the only declared candidate for the party in the upcoming election, candidates alone are not notable. Notability has been questioned on the articles talk page, and Talk:Yukon general election, 2011#Green Party. Prod was contested. 117Avenue (talk) 13:15, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

::I don't see the sense of having a stub article on the interim leader of a fringe party. If someone wants her mentioned then mention her in the Yukon Green Party article. Newfoundlander&Labradorian (talk) 13:28, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

  • Delete. Really, this is only an issue of her notability, not her party's. With no professional résumé other than becoming interim leader of her party and standing for election, she fails WP:POLITICIAN. She also fails WP:GNG, as there's not substantial coverage of her in reliable sources. (And this is where her party could back its way into the discussion: if her party were bigger, there might have been more press coverage of her selection as interim leader and profiles of her. However, it's ultimately not about how many sources write about the party, but how many write about Calhoun.) So, there aren't enough sources to warrant a full article on Calhoun, though she's probably worth mentioning at the Yukon Green Party's article, especially if she becomes the regular and not interim leader. —C.Fred (talk) 14:50, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Delete, C.Fred said it well. It's not about her party or her position, it's about coverage of her, of which there is very little. PKT(alk) 15:16, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Delete, C.Fred said it all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Grande (talk • contribs) 15:57, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 19:32, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

  • Keep notable leader of a territorial political party. Me-123567-Me (talk) 20:25, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

::Which aspect of the notability guidelines are you asserting she meets? —C.Fred (talk) 20:47, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

:::WP:POLITICIAN 1, 2. Me-123567-Me (talk) 20:52, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

:::: That requires her to have actually held an office, not just to have stood in an election. 98.248.194.216 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 20:57, 2 September 2011 (UTC).

:::::Who are you, and why are you not registered? Also why are you removing warnings from your talk page? Me-123567-Me (talk) 21:01, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

::::::Who they are makes no difference, the point is you've have provided a weak reason for keeping this article and therefore it should be deleted. I think there has been enough discussion and the article should be deleted ASAP. Newfoundlander&Labradorian (talk) 21:04, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

:::::: I removed the warnings from my talk page because they were hilariously wrong. People kept using automated tools to restore vandalism that I had removed from Neil Francis (rugby union) as you can see in that page's history. However, that has nothing to do with this deletion discussion. Please keep the discussion here on topic, and comment on the content, not on the contributor. 98.248.194.216 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:05, 2 September 2011 (UTC).

::::If she meets WP:POLITICIAN #2, why aren't any of the stories cited in the article? (Conversely, to N&L, part of the reason the discussion runs seven days is to allow time for sources to be located—or for searches to be run to confirm that the sources aren't out there.)—C.Fred (talk) 21:07, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

:::::They're in the article. I believe I have 3 articles with her in them. Me-123567-Me (talk) 01:51, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

::::::Three articles and you still only had enough information for a stub? Newfoundlander&Labradorian (talk) 02:01, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

:::::::Sadly, yes. That's all I could get out of them. Perhaps you'd like to read them over for anything I missed? Me-123567-Me (talk) 03:01, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

  • Move to user space and redirect I don't think a credible case can be made that she is currently a "major local political figures who [has] received significant press coverage". She certainly doesn't pass 1 or 3, so the article should go. That said, we are at a moment when she could meet 1 or 2 shortly as she could win her seat or become permanent leader of the party. Leading a truly fringe party may mean nothing, but there is at least an argument that leading the subnational branch of the Green Party is notable enough for an article, but there is also an argument the other way. In any event, I suggest either holding on until after the election or, and this is the option I prefer, moving the page to User:Me-123567-Me/Kristina Calhoun, then changing the redirect target to Yukon Green Party. If these suggestions are unacceptable, either as a matter of consensus or as a matter of policy, my vote should be take as Delete. -Rrius (talk) 03:19, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
  • I don't want it in my userpsace. That's not what I did the work for. Me-123567-Me (talk) 17:34, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
  • I wasn't suggesting it be put there as a trophy. If you go back and read more carefully what I wrote, I suggested it in case she actually does become worthy of an article in the short term so it wouldn't have to be recreated from scratch. -Rrius (talk) 00:41, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 18:41, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

  • Merge and redirect to Yukon Green Party. Even the three sources in the article focus more on the party than the idividual. Can be split back out later if Calhoun gains significant coverage. Resolute 16:10, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
  • What content from the article would actually be merge-worthy? -Rrius (talk) 00:41, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
  • WP:POLITICIAN should, in fact, specify that being the leader of a political party is considered a position notable enough to warrant an article, regardless of the party's or the leader's personal degree of electoral success — because WP:OUTCOMES certainly documents that that is the very clear and unambiguous precedent established by past AFDs on leaders of smaller political parties. However, it also offers the compromise that the person's name can be redirected to the party's article if we can't actually source or write much more about them than the fact that they are or were the leader a political party. Accordingly, deletion isn't really an option here, because the established precedent is that a leader of a duly registered political party is absolutely, unequivocally, no exceptions under any circumstances whatsoever, entitled to be either an article or a redirect — so keep if additional sources can be provided, and redirect to Yukon Green Party, without prejudice against future recreation if additional sources pan out at a later date, if they can't. Bearcat (talk) 02:05, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
  • The guideline is still the guideline, and even if generally party leaders are kept, there is a significant difference: she is just the interim leader. I noted above that if she gets the permanent leadership that there is at least an argument for having an article, but that isn't the situation. -Rrius (talk) 05:45, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
  • There's no notability distinction between an interim leader and a permanent one; an interim leader has all the same rights and responsibilities as a non-interim leader does, except for the ability to choose the timing of their departure. Even as an interim leader, she can still lead the party into the election, and she can still serve as Premier if the party happens to win the election — so she's no less notable for our purposes than a permanent leader selected by a full party convention would be. It's certainly a different thing within the party infrastructure — but there's no real reason for it to be a different thing for our purposes if there are enough reliable sources about the person to meet our referencing and notability standards. Bearcat (talk) 01:45, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Keep In my eyes the sources meet the threshold for the general notability guidlines, the articles don't specificlaly have to be about here, but the do address her, in detail.--kelapstick(bainuu) 05:24, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure I understand your point. It doesn't matter whether the sources are notable. What matters is whether she is notable. Getting mentioned in three articles about something else is not wide coverage. -Rrius (talk) 05:45, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
  • What I meant was that the sources provided satisfy my requirements for a stand alone Wikipedia article about her. I see significant coverage of her (within articles written specifically about the Yukon Green Party) written by an independant reliable source, the Yukon News. I have also added a new section to the article, with the sources provided. --kelapstick(bainuu) 06:02, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
  • I'm sorry, but I can't agree that two stories from one source and one from another satisfies the project's requirements for coverage. -Rrius (talk) 07:10, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
  • You are free to disagree with my interpretation. --kelapstick(bainuu) 08:54, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
  • A couple of notes to add to this discussion. 1. It's the Yukon. "Significant coverage" might be limited to just two or three sources, because it's possible that's all that is available there. 2. Did anyone look at the Google results? I'm not sure how many are reliable, but there are quite a few. 3. The Yukon Green Party just started less than a year ago. It takes time to build up "more coverage" and that may still be limited to two or three sources. She may never be internationally famous, but residents of the Yukon know who she is. Me-123567-Me (talk) 15:42, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
  • My Google News search only brought up a couple passing mentions by the CBC, one of which I added, but the two were basically the same statement.--kelapstick(bainuu) 21:11, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
  • That was my experience as well. People are getting caught up in numbers but are losing sight of how they matter. Sure, the Yukon is sparsely populated, so there aren't going to be as many stories as for people elsewhere. That said, the stories we have seen are largely duplicative, with the same basic facts mentioned about her in stories about the same basic thing. I don't think anyone denies that she could become notable based on WP:Politician; it's just that is not there yet. Interim leader leader of fledgling party is not in itself enough to make her notable, and the stories that mention her are not sufficient yet to confirm notability either. We'll just have to wait. -Rrius (talk) 21:25, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
  • The threshold for WP:GNG is "significant coverage" of the subject. Many of the sources just mention her as the candidate and talk about the party; however, the [http://www.whitehorsestar.com/archive/story/greens-are-a-party-of-balance-candidate-says/ "Greens are a party of balance, candidate says"] story from the Yukon News spends some column-inches on Calhoun the person. Regarding the quantity of sources, GNG goes on to say "The number and nature of reliable sources needed varies depending on the depth of coverage and quality of the sources. Multiple sources are generally expected." I'm re-weighing my position; I'm no longer convinced that the article history needs deleted, though a merge to the Yukon Green Party may be in order. —C.Fred (talk) 13:42, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Merge to Yukon Green Party, redirect, preserve page history. I still think that the ultimate issue for a stand-alone article is Calhoun's notability as a person. It's a one-event biography at this point, really; yes, she's leader of the party and standing for election, but it's all within the activity of one election cycle. The tipping point for her stand-alone article will come after the votes are cast. If she wins, she'll be notable enough. If she loses but draws enough to turn her party into a player in territorial politics and continues in leadership of the party, or remains active in public life like a certain politician from Alaska has done, she'll probably be notable enough. If she loses and steps down from the party, she'll likely not be notable enough (but worth a mention in the YGP article, still). All of that comes down to future events, though; we shouldn't be gazing into a crystal ball to predict that. We need to go by what she's done now, and I don't see enough for a stand-alone article at this time. —C.Fred (talk) 13:59, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
  • I've asked this before, but I got no answer, so I'll ask you: what content from the article would fit at Yukon Green Party. I'm all for preserving the edit history, but simply replacing the current content with a redirect without deleting the page would do the trick. Unless you're using "merge" as a shorthand for doing just that? -Rrius (talk) 21:25, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

:::I would add that she is standing for election in Riverdale North and that she was briefly the co-leader of the party. I'm not sure it's relevant that she's a stay-at-home mom, though. —C.Fred (talk) 21:44, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

  • Keep Political party leaders are notable.--Þadius (talk) 17:36, 7 September 2011 (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.