Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tammy Jennings

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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. The delete arguments are better founded in policy: WP:BIO, WP:POLITICIAN, WP:CRYSTAL. The keep arguments do not amount to much more than WP:UPANDCOMING. If she is elected, I will be happy to undelete the article on request. JohnCD (talk) 13:51, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tammy Jennings

[edit]
Tammy Jennings (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable individual lacking GHits of substance and GNEWS. Article references are a one line mention in a news article and a Linkedin reference. Article appears to fail WP:POLITICIAN. ttonyb (talk) 06:20, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Jennings is running for a safe seat for her party in the Legislative Council; short of her being hit by a bus, she will definitely be a member of parliament-elect in just over two months time. Rebecca (talk) 06:22, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I used the exact same defense on O'Dwyer but it was kept because her election was a virtual certainty. Same here. Timeshift (talk) 06:50, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This goes far beyond WAX, a) the direct theory behind keeping O'Dwyer applies here, and b) her election is virtually guaranteed. Timeshift (talk) 07:26, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – I do not know what you mean by, "This goes far beyond WAX". a) WP:WAX still applies regardless of O'Dwyer - simply put each article needs to stand on its own merits; b) Per Benjamin Franklin, "In this world nothing can be said to be certain, except death and taxes." ttonyb (talk) 07:30, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
See above. Timeshift (talk) 06:50, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above. Doc Quintana (talk) 06:42, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless conditions are met: Per WP:CBALL, Individual scheduled or expected future events should only be included if the event is notable and almost certain to take place. National election is notable, check. Event is almost certain to take place? There are no reliable references from a neutral source in the article that state that her election is nearly guaranteed. I am not a follower of Australian politics, of course those who are may know that her election is guaranteed. But without a reliable source indicating such, the argument that she is very likely to be elected, is invalid. The "conditions" I refer to are that the article should have reliable evidence of her "guaranteed" status, from a reliable unbiased source, added as soon as possible. –ArmadniGeneral (talk • contribs) 06:57, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • But honestly, to be reasonable, even if a source demonstrating her "guaranteed" status can't be found, there's no sense in deleting this article only to possibly re-create it in a few weeks. Postpone discussion? If she fails to be elected, we'll have another AfD for non-notable, failed candidate. –ArmadniGeneral (talk • contribs) 06:59, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I wholeheartedly agree with ArmadniGeneral - delete if she doesn't end up getting elected. But she will, the virtual certainly is shown in the lead of the article. Timeshift (talk) 07:03, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I voted keep in the O'Dwyer article as there was enough information on her to meet WP:BIO in combination with the inevitability of her being elected. While I'm happy to take it on good faith that Ms Jennings is also a shoe-in, the article has no reference to that effect or any references in independent reliable sources on Ms Jennings. As such, WP:BIO isn't met. Nick-D (talk) 07:02, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Based on speculative WP:OR/WP:CBALL that the Greens will win this, almost entirely based on opinion polls with small sample sizes, to justify an article which ordinarily would fail A7. I don't think it is "guaranteed" - they won a seat for the first time ever in this chamber in 2006 based almost entirely on preference flows from another candidate, who of course isn't running this time. This article relies on non-EL sources such as Linkedin and Youtube to provide any information at all, and doesn't (and can't) even include basic biographical information. On that basis I'm arguing deletion per WP:BIO. (Since several people are linking the two, I voted "provisionally keep or userfy" in Kelly O'Dwyer.) Orderinchaos 09:17, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'll let people judge the accuracy of the average 900-sample Newspoll. The Greens got a member on 4 percent, Family First gets members on 4 percent, Xen first got 2.9 percent. With a quota of 8.3 percent, after preference flows, the tripling of poll figures may not be accurate to the number but it represents a large swing to the point of whether they can elect a second. First, shoo-in. Timeshift (talk) 09:50, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I repeat: WP:OR / WP:CBALL. Polls say all sorts of things - they don't necessarily happen. Let's work from a Wikipedia policy framework here, not WP:ILIKEIT - essentially you're saying your personal opinion that someone may win should be used to justify a frankly terrible bio article. Orderinchaos 10:45, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete crystal-balling. I also voted delete for Kelly O'Dwyer. Barrylb (talk) 10:50, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete no notability except a candidate for subnational parliament and therefore outside wp:politician. I hold this view for all candidates for subnational parliaments but in addition for this article my understanding is that the SALC quota is 8.5% so her "certainty" depends on 1) current Greens polling being maintained after their recent performance in the senate and once campaigning begins - which is by no means certain and/or 2) one or both major parties preference them above Xenophone or Family First - which is also by no means certain. I would think "quite likely" rather than "certain". Porturology (talk) 20:51, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - marginal candidate in a subnational election; never has been anyone. Bearian (talk) 00:27, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
...and all these Americans routinely keep the odd city councillor, a lower level than state politics YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 00:08, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – Not sure why we would want to start any sort of American bashing. I have seen Americans kill a number of articles based solely on their Wikipedia based merits. Glass houses come in all sizes and shapes and more importantly it has little if any bearing on this discussion. ttonyb (talk) 00:17, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per common sense. Deleting this article when it is almost certain that the subject will soon pass WP:POLITICIAN would, in my view, be a classic example of putting overly strict adherence to policies (WP:CRYSTAL – even if it applied which I think is doubtful) ahead of common sense. She might even pass notability before the election takes place if her candidacy receives sufficient coverage to get her over the WP:GNG line. Let the article run until the election. If for some unexpected reason the candidate fails, bring it back to AfD. --Mkativerata (talk) 01:21, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The point has been made above that it is not "almost certain". If it were, my vote might well be different (it was re O'Dwyer, and I undeleted an article on Adele Carles for a user to work on ahead of her nearly inevitable election.) Orderinchaos 02:00, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I disagree. "Almost certain" is of course open to interpretation and in any case is not the applicable threshold here; anyway, in my view, for being first on the Greens ticket for the SA Legislative Council, "almost certain" is if anything an understatement. The real point is that deleting this page in light of the very short odds of the subject's imminent election is pointless procedure. --Mkativerata (talk) 02:05, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It is almost certain. The Greens only needed to repeat 2006 (4.3% plus sufficient prefs), not increase their polling by three times what it was. You can't just dismiss a poll indicating a long term trend of above 10%. You attempted to dismiss Green polling at the WA election as impossible as you couldn't see 12% happening across the state when you looked at booths - and look what happened. Timeshift (talk) 03:25, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As we all know, the WA election was a statistical blip because in a heap of key safe Labor seats, no other party but Labor, Liberal, Green ran a candidate, and the protest vote up for grabs was around 17% in some cases. That was a one-off - I'm sure the Newspoll makers were thanking whatever deity they worship that the other parties were disorganised enough to make their prediction (almost) right. Orderinchaos 04:05, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So a lack of minor parties ensured Newspoll correctly predicted the Green vote? LOL now i've heard it all :D Timeshift (talk) 04:16, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Non-notable politician who does not meet WP:POLITICIAN. If and when she is elected, the article can be re-created/restored. Hair-splitting about "almost certain" etc. dont refute the basic argument that speculating about election results is crystal-balling. Elections are funny things ... -- Mattinbgn\talk 02:18, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
But Kelly O'Dwyer was kept under the guise that her election was very likely. Seems wikipedia just loves being inconsistent. Shame really. Timeshift (talk) 03:22, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
How does it serve the reader to have to undelete this article in ten weeks? It's of plenty of interest to readers on the subject now. Rebecca (talk) 02:23, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Assuming that she gets elected, which is a big "if" at this stage. Orderinchaos 04:05, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hardly. When you started trying to insist that she wasn't contesting a safe seat (with some incredibly dubious logic), you didn't even know which parliament she was running for. Rebecca (talk) 04:26, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Caught out! Honestly, getting elected at the last election on 4.3% with prefs (which isn't odd, if someone gets 4% in the SALC they're highly expected to win a seat), a quota being 8.3%, and the last five polls above 10% and currently at 12%... and arguing it's a big if. Champagne comedy! Timeshift (talk) 04:33, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Firstly, I have told you many times before that I have a visual impairment - I am not good at reading blocks of text, and it has been 40+ deg C here. Secondly, despite my initial error (entirely on MSN, I might note, before I came here to vote), ironically the point that I made was more pertinent to the LC race than the Senate one due to the electoral mathematics involved. If you're going to try and take your personal attacks against me on MSN onto this forum, at least get them right, and put them in context. Orderinchaos 10:40, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep We can delete in two months, don't need to do a redundant lap of the circuit before then, and the election is highly likely, not a 50-50 thing, as you only need 8% after preferences to get in, and minor parties preference each other. YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 06:15, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
But Newspoll must be overpredicting the Green vote by 250%! They just must be!! :D (I again invite anyone interested in Newspoll's accuracy to see here, or poke around the other state/federal equivalents.) Timeshift (talk) 06:17, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete per comments by Nick D and Tony. Sarah 11:23, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'm puzzled. If the world was so convinced she'll be notable in a few weeks' time, why isn't she whizzing past the normal WP:BIO criteria now? --Dweller (talk) 12:20, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Crappy coverage of the campaign? It's now ten weeks out from election day - coverage generally is bound to increase dramatically over the next few weeks. Fairly safe to say it'll be whizzing past by election day. Rebecca (talk) 14:15, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Isn't this the definition of WP:CRYSTAL? If she dropped dead tomorrow (not that I wish any harm to her) of something banal like a heart-attack, she wouldn't ever achieve notability. Or if she suddenly couldn't cope with the pressure and quit politics. Or if her aging relative in Thingummyjig, Utah, broke a hip and she decided to abandon public life to look after the old dear. At AfD, we routinely delete articles of people of who do not yet pass WP:ATHLETE, even if it's just a matter of time before they make the notable appearance that qualifies them, per WP:CRYSTAL, because they may break a leg or whatever and never take that first sporting step that gives them notability. I see no difference here. --Dweller (talk) 14:34, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • So tell me why Kelly O'Dwyer was kept. I'll tell you why - it was deemed that she was virtually guaranteed victory, and there was no point deleting or moving an article just to see it re-created later. It's the same here. Anywhere near what the Greens have been polling over the second half of the current term and they're not looking at trying to win one seat but trying to win two seats. The vote has tripled yet they only needed to have a repeat performance of the last election. They're polling a quota and a half so they won't even need to go to preferences if the polling is anywhere near right. Per above I maintain the accuracy of Newspoll and people are welcome to compare polls and results. And let's also not forget that the margin of error is 3 percent, and even less for minor parties. Timeshift (talk) 06:45, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • We don't go on the basis of precedent, we go on policies and guidelines put in place by consensus. --Dweller (talk) 10:24, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
            • So in other words, the guidelines are set up to allow wikipedia to contradict itself. I said when it looked like an O'Dwyer keep that keeping that article would set a precedent and nobody cared. How does it look that wikipedia keeps a very likely Liberal but if you get your way will dump a very likely Green. Partisan is what it looks like, AND IT LOOKS UGLY. Timeshift (talk) 00:19, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
            • I was not involved in O'Dwyer and I think it was a mistake - which can not be amended. However, I did object to the declaration of Vanessa Goodwin as the winner of the Pembroke state by-election, 2009 before the preferences were counted and there is an interesting discussion on the talk page. For similar reasons I still think this should be deleted or perhaps userfied until the election. Once candidates are treated as members, there will be little restraint. Should we have an article on the woman who was named by last night's ABC news as a strong contender for pre-selection in Altona? Porturology (talk) 05:19, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

<- Dewey was notable before he lost that election. And if she did drop dead and got media coverage for it (I keep wondering why she hasn't yet had coverage if this is a notable election) she'd be covered by WP:BLP1E - and in any case that is still be covered at this point by WP:CRYSTAL. --Dweller (talk) 11:17, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a presidential election, this is an upper house proportional election. The Greens only need to repeat their last performance. The polls show their polling numbers have tripled from 4 to 12. To cast doubt on the success of the lead candidate is lunacy. Timeshift (talk) 11:24, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As I keep saying, the inevitability or otherwise is totally irrelevant. Either she is currently notable or not. To be notable she must either currently fulfil WP:BIO or WP:POLITICIAN. She doesn't fulfil either. The article should be deleted and then restored when she wins. --Dweller (talk) 11:38, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Come March she will be noteable. Question, do you understand how I feel when I used the exact same arguments for O'Dwyer, was ignored and overruled with the same arguments you make, warn that it sets bad precedent, then have the reverse happen here? I think WP:IAR applies here when it comes to WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Timeshift (talk) 12:39, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I understand you're frustrated. If I'd seen that AfD, I'd have argued the same as here, but be reassured with four things: 1) you can renominate an article for AfD (some have survived multiple such nominations) 2) deleted articles can be restored easily if circumstances change (such as an election win) 3) Aside from a few very specific areas (such as the work of Arbcom) Wikipedia works on consensus, not precedent. 4) As you seem to have argued my position on a different article, you presumably agree with me on this one, wholeheartedly, if only you can overcome your personal POV. I think I'd agree with you on IAR if the election were tomorrow, or next week perhaps, but not if it's not till March. --Dweller (talk) 12:52, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I had actually wondered the same as Dweller above. There seems to be a delightful absence of policy on that side of the debate. Orderinchaos 06:28, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think Kelly O'Dwyer proves that is irrelevant. WP:OSE aside, it was kept because she was very likely to be noteable reasonably soon. That same reasoning has the ability to apply here. Timeshift (talk) 06:32, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The law of precedent does not apply to Wikipedia. It's not a court. And Kelly O'Dwyer was an unusual case of a one-party by-election race - I've already said my own view is more liberal than policy generally allows on this, but even my rather flexible views on notability really can't extend to this one. I mean, look at the article. It's awful. Orderinchaos 06:46, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
But isn't that the whole point? No point deleting it because she'll be noteable soon (no, the Greens can't really not win a seat in the proportional upper house from here), and when election coverage starts in earnest (very soon) there will be refs and more to add to the article. I said WP:OSE aside. The rationale of very likely to be noteable soon was used to ignore other rules on O'Dwyer, resulting in a keep for a candidate technically not yet noteable. I don't see why the same rationale isn't being used here. And to clear things up, I actually support articles for all candidates, but am fine with following wikipedia guidelines. That's why I put up a fuss with O'Dwyer as I would any other candidate, but the AfD result was keep. I asked in wikiproject talk, does this mean candidates very likely to be elected can now get their own page. There was no indication of any objection to this. I want to follow what we've decided on wikipedia, precedent, we all do. We want to make sure that things are consistent with what is expected. It was expected that non-noteable candidates do not get their own page until they are elected, clear and simple. O'Dwyer was kept despite the fact that at the time she was not noteable and not elected. It was overruled and got no negative responses on wikiproject talk when I asked about creating near-certainty MPs. If wikipedia cannot even be consistent then it has no hope. Timeshift (talk) 07:01, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Timeshift - the point is we need a consistent policy; whichever way this AfD ends I really do urge an extended discussion to settle this once and for all. My personal preference is for such articles as these to be deleted, but I believe I have shown in the past that I am willing to put my own views aside if Wikipedia disagrees. Either people "certain" or "very likely" to be elected are notable, or they are not. Can I also say that Timeshift certainly did go through all the proper procedures before creating this article. As for absence of policy, well, there was absence of policy at Kelly O'Dwyer as well. I'm sorry to hark on about another AfD debate, but that particular debate led directly to the creation of the article we are discussing now. Frickeg (talk) 08:42, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Agree there needs to be further discussion. However, until we have a new policy, it is not clear this article should be here. I would not like to crystal-ball on the outcome of policy changes either so my vote to delete stands. Barrylb (talk) 13:07, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

NB I've included a note about this AfD at The BIO talk page, to encourage outside views, in case this is a special case and subject to IAR. --Dweller (talk) 13:29, 20 January 2010 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Tammy_Jennings&oldid=1089090384"