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 keep. with a side of IAR as is reflected in the consensus. The election is this week, draftifying would be process wonkery. If she loses, this can be revisited. Star Mississippi 01:57, 18 May 2022 (UTC) reply

Cassandra Fernando (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log | edits since nomination)

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

Fails WP:NPOL unelected politician and also fails WP:GNG McMatter ^{( talk)}/_{( contrib)} 00:34, 1 May 2022 (UTC) reply

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Politicians, Politics, and Australia. McMatter ^{( talk)}/_{( contrib)} 00:34, 1 May 2022 (UTC) reply

Comment Similar to Linda White (politician), this candidate is very likely to be elected on 21 May 2022. Onetwothreeip ( talk) 01:17, 1 May 2022 (UTC) reply

• Draftify for a few weeks, delete if she loses (which is unlikely). Frickeg ( talk) 01:49, 1 May 2022 (UTC) reply
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone ^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:46, 1 May 2022 (UTC) reply
• Draftify. If she gets elected in the coming election, presumably she would pass WP:NPOL and then she might have enough references to pass WP:GNG. Chanaka L ( talk) 10:06, 2 May 2022 (UTC) reply
• Comment I expect I'll be a minority here, nevertheless .... Australia's federal election is less than three weeks away, for which this person is a candidate and who in all likelihood will win ( 45 years since a tory won the seat). On election, presumed notability will be accorded. Against that, deleting the article this close to the election creates attention in and of itself. If this was a minor party candidate, I would be less concerned and agree with strict application of the GNG ... but I think an 18-day suspension here is not unreasonable. Does the risk of drawing attention by deletion/draftifying outweigh the zero impact to this encyclopedia of waiting 18 days? Regards, -- Goldsztajn ( talk) 11:31, 3 May 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Note that Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. We shouldn't be keeping an article in mainspace on the expectation that the subject might be notable in the future. I don't really think we run the risk of drawing any media attention if we draftify this article. –  numbermaniac 08:41, 4 May 2022 (UTC) reply
• Draftify To enforce the consensus that Wikipedia should not be used as free campaign advertising for otherwise non-notable individuals. AusLondonder ( talk) 22:25, 3 May 2022 (UTC) reply

  ...except we're discussing someone with a 99.9% likelihood of being elected to a national parliament. I actually think in a case like this there's not a factual basis to claim that the presence of the article acts as free campaign advertising ... given our policies around PROMO there's more than adequate means to deal with those problems. The mere existence of the article itself cannot be said to assist the campaign as any Google search shows her appearance in local media. Whereas removing the article creates news in itself - sort of Wikipedia Schrödinger's cat phenomenon. Ultimately, we're engaged in a round about process, that's only going to get us back to the article in 18 days. How is that making the encyclopedia better? Again, there's no precedent being set here, this is just applying some commonsense to a very specific circumstance. But, as I said above, I expect I'll be in the minority. Regards, Goldsztajn ( talk) 02:07, 4 May 2022 (UTC) reply

• Draftify seems like a good WP:ATD in this case (as with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Linda White (politician)). - Kj cheetham ( talk) 22:43, 3 May 2022 (UTC) reply
• Draftify. They're likely to win, but we should only have an article about them after they have won, not in anticipation of their victory. –  numbermaniac 08:41, 4 May 2022 (UTC) reply
• Keep. The arguments to draftify and re-create in a couple weeks are frankly ridiculous and are depriving readers of information for no purpose. Creating articles for safe seats is the standard for U.S. politics articles as nomination is tantamount to election. Numerous articles on 2022 election candidates have already been created - Allegra Spender, Monique Ryan - who are much less likely to be elected, not sure why this is being singled out. ITBF ( talk) 11:04, 4 May 2022 (UTC) reply

Do you have any evidence to support that claim regarding American politicians? As someone who monitors AfD I don't agree with your conclusions. AusLondonder ( talk) 15:12, 4 May 2022 (UTC) reply

Trent Kelly was created before being elected to a seemingly safe Republican district in Mississippi. There's even a 2015 talk page discussion mirroring similar issues as here. Regards, Goldsztajn ( talk) 01:01, 5 May 2022 (UTC) reply

Ditto Donald Payne Jr created prior to winning safe Democrat district in New Jersey. Regards, Goldsztajn ( talk) 01:21, 5 May 2022 (UTC) reply

WP:OTHERSTUFF. - Kj cheetham ( talk) 11:00, 8 May 2022 (UTC) reply

WP:OTHERSTUFF: "If you reference such a past debate, and it is clearly a very similar case to the current debate, this can be a strong argument that should not be discounted because of a misconception that this section is a blanket ban on ever referencing other articles or deletion debates." Regards, Goldsztajn ( talk) 06:00, 9 May 2022 (UTC) reply

• After not asserting it once in 15 years, twice in two minutes is presumably acceptable, I guess I have a few remaining in the pantry ... WP:IAR+ WP:COMMONSENSE = Keep. regards, -- Goldsztajn ( talk) 11:33, 4 May 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: More participation needed - please base your decision on the existing policies.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Less Unless ( talk) 18:13, 9 May 2022 (UTC) reply

• Draftify: Per WP:CRYSTAL, even if the election is soon, this article was written in advance of the election and shouldn't have made it out of draftspace to begin with. Doesn't meet notability guidelines to be an article as is. Amadeus²² 🙋 🔔 18:36, 9 May 2022 (UTC) reply

  WP:CRYSTAL: "Individual scheduled or expected future events should be included only if the event is notable and almost certain to take place." 9-10 days away from the election now depending on your time zone. Regards, Goldsztajn ( talk) 23:12, 11 May 2022 (UTC) reply

  This is a reasonable approach for this case, but if this was to be replicated in policy, we would experience a nightmare of arguments over what constitutes "almost certain". Onetwothreeip ( talk) 23:55, 12 May 2022 (UTC) reply

• Draftify. Just applying the rules - at the moment she doesn't meet WP:NPOL. Spinifex&Sand ( talk) 04:59, 17 May 2022 (UTC) reply
• Keep per ITBF's comments, we all have better things to do than shift articles around for no critical reason.-- Milowent • ^{has spoken} 18:23, 17 May 2022 (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.