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 Animal Welfare Party. (non-admin closure) ansh 666 03:31, 12 December 2015 (UTC) reply

Vanessa Hudson (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)

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

Fails WP:NPOL. Hudson has never been elected. She heads a very minor political party, that has never achieved even 1% of the vote in any election they've stood. All the material here could be better covered under Animal Welfare Party. The article has 3 citations: the first is not independent, the second is to a minor local publication, while the third is more substantive, but the latter two are both covering Hudson's candidacy, so this comes under WP:NPOL that says being a candidate alone is not notable. Bondegezou ( talk) 10:38, 16 November 2015 (UTC) reply

This may be more interesting than those sources: [1]

That is an interview with Hudson about her party's campaign in an election. Such material is better covered under the party than the individual, as per WP:1E. Bondegezou ( talk) 22:23, 19 November 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 04:09, 21 November 2015 (UTC) reply

• Being the leader of a political party, even a minor one, can be enough of a claim of notability if the sourcing is solid enough to satisfy WP:GNG — but it does not constitute an automatic inclusion freebie under WP:NPOL, and the level of sourcing here isn't good enough. And being a non-winning candidate in the general election doesn't provide any sort of notability assistance at all. Until such time as there's enough substantive and properly sourced content about her to justify a standalone BLP, the appropriate solution is for her to be briefly discussed in the party's article rather than spun off like this. Redirect to Animal Welfare Party or delete. Bearcat ( talk) 18:18, 29 November 2015 (UTC) reply
• Delete as per Bearcat and nominator. My sweeps did not find much. Fringe party, not many votes, not much to suggest notability.-- Tomwsulcer ( talk) 00:49, 30 November 2015 (UTC) Change to Keep as per Vanamonde93's weigh-in, below.-- Tomwsulcer ( talk) 12:48, 2 December 2015 (UTC) reply
• Keep Bearcat is correct of course, and in such a situation I would ordinarily tend delete; but when looking, I found the following; 1, 2, 3, 4, 5. Of these, 1 and 5 in particular strike me as substantive enough to let the subject meet GNG. Bearcat, Tomwsulcer, what do you think of these? Vanamonde93 ( talk) 08:15, 2 December 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Comment Those items, even 1 and 5, are about the Animal Welfare Party's campaign in the 2015 Euro-elections and about Hudson as leader and spokesperson for the party and its campaign. As per WP:NPOL and WP:1E, you can have lots of material about someone but if it's all about a specific event (which in the case of politicians means all about a specific election campaign), then it is generally more appropriate to have an article about the event, not person. In this case, as I see it, that means those citations can and should be used in the article for the Animal Welfare Party or for that particular election. What I have not seen is anything showing notability for Hudson beyond that campaign. Bondegezou ( talk) 14:19, 2 December 2015 (UTC) reply
    • I am just going by Wikipedia's guideline which says a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list, and clearly, with articles in the BBC and Independent plus elsewhere, she meets the guideline; if Wikipedians change the guideline I'll change my vote, although personally I agree, VH is not that notable overall.-- Tomwsulcer ( talk) 14:54, 2 December 2015 (UTC) reply
      • WP:1E and WP:NPOL are guidelines too and they moderate WP:GNG. I suggest we need to consider all relevant guidelines in their totality. That is what Wikipedians want and do. Bondegezou ( talk) 22:15, 2 December 2015 (UTC) reply
        • I am not ignoring those guidelines; I have read them, and take them into consideration. In my opinion, the nature of the coverage here is such that an individual article is justified. The guidelines allow for some wiggle room, where judgement calls need to be made; this is one such. Vanamonde93 ( talk) 08:07, 3 December 2015 (UTC) reply

Comment Hello again. Let me start by correcting myself. The citations given aren't all from the Euro-elections: they span the Euro-elections in 2014, the general election in 2015 and the Tower Hamlets mayoral by-election later in 2015. My apologies for my earlier error. Citation 1 is from 6 May 2014. Very little of the article is about Hudson as a person; nearly all of it is about the Animal Welfare Party's political positions and their 2014 Euro-election campaign. Citation 2 is from 1 May 2015: it is a local newspaper with a short mention of Hudson. Hudson is standing in at the hustings for the Animal Welfare Party's candidate in the 2015 general election. There is nothing in the citation about Hudson: it is all about the party's policies. Citation 3 is about the Tower Hamlets mayoral election in June 2015, with Hudson standing. It includes merely half a sentence about Hudson and the AWP. Citation 4 is about the same mayoral campaign: there is a brief mention of Hudson and, again, it's all about the party's positions and nothing about Hudson as a person. Citation 5, which is the same as the citation given higher up, is from April 2015 and is about the general election campaign. This is an interview with Hudson, but again about the party and its campaign. There is nothing in it about Hudson as a person. WP:GNG requires coverage of the subject of the article. These citations demonstrate that the Animal Welfare Party passes WP:GNG. They do not, as far as I can see, demonstrate that Vanessa Hudson passes WP:GNG. There is certainly some wiggle room in the guidelines and judgement calls are needed. However, I don't see the material here to populate an article about Hudson. Bondegezou ( talk) 10:48, 3 December 2015 (UTC) reply

• Redirect - Thank you @ Bearcat: for the logic. Most people don't get that in depth. In this case, that is a great assessment as even failed politicians can be notable under WP:GNG. Unfortunately, the information I am finding is more specific to Animal Welfare Party where this should be redirected. -- CNMall41 ( talk) 07:37, 8 December 2015 (UTC) reply
• Redirect per above, possibly merge somewhat. Coverage seems to be mostly about the party rather than the person. Can be spun out again if she gets more coverage personally.  Sandstein  20:39, 11 December 2015 (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.