Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aimee Knight

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

Aimee Knight (edit | 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)

Hi, I’ve nominated this page for deletion as I’m not sure whether they are relevant enough to warrant an entire wikipedia page, politicians who’ve stood for election and lost with less than 2% of the vote don’t generally get Wikipedia pages, especially when they’ve done nothing of much note after the fact. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maxisediting (talk • contribs) 15:40, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, not meeting the WP:NPOL criteria only means that there's no inherent notability, not that the subject is not notable. There seems to be enough significant coverage to meet WP:NBIO/WP:GNG. --AlexandraAVX (talk) 07:09, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, agree with the above. Fundamentally well covered enough to meet criteria, and little reason to remove well enough sourced information. Flatthew (talk) 14:47, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, Knight is much more than a failed election candidate as is attested to by the numerous citations to other events covered in the article. JezGrove (talk) 16:33, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 June 28. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 17:09, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Women, Sexuality and gender, Internet, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:17, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete already been deleted twice under a different title, and the article contains massive WP:BLP concerns. SportingFlyer T·C 21:27, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  A lot of the sources in the article are newer than the previous AfDs, I don't really see the relevance of them. AlexandraAVX (talk) 06:12, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm just struggling to figure out why she's notable. She clearly doesn't qualify for NPOL, and her other "event" was being fired. Most of the sources are either local papers or self-published. The article reads like WP:NPF needs to be properly applied as well. I'm struggling to see why this should be kept. SportingFlyer T·C 13:55, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, Knight is an important figure in the recent history and controversies of Green Party of England and Wales as the article shows - Knight was not just a failed politician but someone whose behaviour and actions have had ramifications across the political spectrum. Zeno27 (talk) 22:33, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• (Redacted)

Can an admin delete this comment and block this person for using such a language! FuzzyMagma (talk) 11:48, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The only "problem" with the redaction is that it proved my point that there are massive WP:NPF concerns with this article, which is about a non-public figure. SportingFlyer T·C 13:39, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: While there is a numerical consensus to Keep, they are weak Keeps with no reference to policy or sources. Also most participants have, what I consider, low edit counts so I'm not sure how familiar they are with the norms of AFD discussions. I'd just like to relist and hopefully hear how this subject meets Wikipedia's standards of notability and, specifically, what reliable independent sources provide SIGCOV.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:26, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Just noting that there has been offwiki canvassing related to this AfD: [1], and I suspect that several of the infrequently active accounts voting in this discussion are likely the result of it. Hemiauchenia (talk) 03:34, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  looking to nom (from someone with two edits) and User:Aquila ka Hecate comment, I think there is more to consider when evaluating this nom FuzzyMagma (talk) 12:01, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There are MULTIPLE reliable sources about the subject cited on the page, notability is obviously established, keep. Pyraminxsolver (talk) 04:49, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Very interesting subject, but I'm not seeing the consistent, in-depth news coverage that would be required for a Wikipedia page. BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 23:37, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: although not a notable as a politician, there is a substantial coverage from reliable sources that Checks all the boxes of WP:GNG comment there is coverage but the page is mostly about David Challenor, Knight's father, and gives undue weight to Challenor. If the article is kept, can someone fix this problem please and create a separate article for David Challenor (currently a redirect) because he actually deserves one with all of the coverage. I am really concerned about why this article was first created and I can’t assume good faith looking to keep votes above. FuzzyMagma (talk) 11:46, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Very difficult case. She's borderline notable, but mostly for other people's wrong-doing and the way it affected her. I don't think it's realistic to have an article on this subject that adheres to the spirit of WP:BLP while also respecting WP:WEIGHT. That is, when the notability claim isn't extremely sound to begin with, and the source of that notability would demand a largely negative article chiefly related to the misdeeds of other people, we arrive at an exceptional scenario. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 16:27, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep It would do this website injustice NOT to include a trans rights activist covered by the likes of The Guardian and BBC News. Content for women's rights, trans, and other activists is already lacking here as it is. We all must do better and try to improve it by not deleting swathes of content. https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-coventry-warwickshire-45373833 https://www.theguardian.com/society/2018/jun/06/aimee-challenor-theresa-may-lgbt-inequality-transgender-green-party Historyexpert2 — Historyexpert2 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.