Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aimee Challenor (2nd nomination)

This discussion was subject to a deletion review on 2018 August 26.
For an explanation of the process, see Wikipedia:Deletion review.

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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 14:30, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Aimee Challenor

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

Note that this is written differently enough from the first version that it doesn't qualify for immediate speedy as a recreation of deleted content -- however, neither her actual notability claim nor the sources are appreciably stronger than the first time. Being an individual issue spokesperson for a minor political party is not an automatic inclusion pass -- it would be fine if she could be sourced well enough to clear WP:GNG, but the sources here aren't accomplishing that. Of the ten references here, she's the author of two of them, four more are primary sources that cannot assist notability, one is a brief namecheck of her existence in an article about something else, one features her giving a brief soundbite in coverage of something else, and one is a blog -- which means there's only one source here (#5) that represents coverage about her in a reliable source, but one acceptable source is not enough sources to pass GNG. As always, Wikipedia is not a place where anybody is entitled to have an article just because it's technically possible to verify that she exists -- she has to be the subject of reliable source coverage in media independent of her to qualify, but that's not what the sources here are. Bearcat (talk) 21:05, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete party political spokespeople are rarely notable, and nothing about her suggests otherwise.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:13, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:19, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:20, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:20, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:21, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I've added further sources that I've found through Google. Hope this helps with your request above. I've also found other Green Party Spokespeople with pages, for example; Rachel Collinson. Thanks, Digestive Biscuit (talk) 12:43, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A political party spokesperson can get an article if she's the subject of enough reliable source coverage to clear WP:GNG. It is not an automatic freebie that entitles her to have an article just because she exists if she isn't the subject of enough reliable source coverage to clear GNG, however — and what you've added isn't reliable source coverage about her, but more primary sources and more glancing namechecks of her existence in coverage that is about subjects other than her. So no, you still haven't demonstrated that she clears GNG. Bearcat (talk) 18:33, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:32, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:18, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Unelected politician, not a party leader. Carrite (talk) 01:51, 15 September 2017 (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.