Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Angeliki Stogia: Difference between revisions

By /

Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit
Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit
Line 32: Line 32:

<small>— [[User:Alchemistress|Alchemistress]] ([[User talk:Alchemistress|talk]]&#32;• [[Special:Contributions/Alchemistress|contribs]]) has made [[Wikipedia:Single-purpose account|few or no other edits]] outside this topic. </small>

<small>— [[User:Alchemistress|Alchemistress]] ([[User talk:Alchemistress|talk]]&#32;• [[Special:Contributions/Alchemistress|contribs]]) has made [[Wikipedia:Single-purpose account|few or no other edits]] outside this topic. </small>

:::Agreed. As a candidate in a crucial by-election she should definitely have an entry. [[Special:Contributions/&#126;2026-67735-6|&#126;2026-67735-6]] ([[User talk:&#126;2026-67735-6|talk]]) 14:40, 31 January 2026 (UTC)

:::Agreed. As a candidate in a crucial by-election she should definitely have an entry. [[Special:Contributions/&#126;2026-67735-6|&#126;2026-67735-6]] ([[User talk:&#126;2026-67735-6|talk]]) 14:40, 31 January 2026 (UTC)

⚫ ⚫ ⚫ ⚫ ⚫

*”’Strong keep for now, wait until after by-election”’ During an ongoing election in which people will go to Wikipedia for neutral information on the candidates, attempting to remove information about one particular candidate whilst leaving articles on other candidates up is against the spirit of [[WP:NPOV]]. There is a very good [https://archive.is/yLDIM Wired article] from 2020 about the issues with deleting Wikipedia articles on current major election candidates, which I would recommend everyone read before making an opinion here— which is why in the context of an active election I would consider [[WP:NPOV]] to outweigh [[WP:NPOL]]. In the event that she does not win the election, I would then support redirecting to [[2026 Gorton and Denton by-election]], but this is something which should be discussed after the election, not now. [[User:Chessrat|<b style=”color: #c90; font-family: comic sans ms”>Chessrat</b>]] <sup>([[User talk:Chessrat|<span style=”color:green”>talk</span>]], [[Special:Contribs/Chessrat|<span style=”color:#f78″>contributions</span>]])</sup> 13:04, 31 January 2026 (UTC)

*”’Strong keep for now, wait until after by-election”’ During an ongoing election in which people will go to Wikipedia for neutral information on the candidates, attempting to remove information about one particular candidate whilst leaving articles on other candidates up is against the spirit of [[WP:NPOV]]. There is a very good [https://archive.is/yLDIM Wired article] from 2020 about the issues with deleting Wikipedia articles on current major election candidates, which I would recommend everyone read before making an opinion here— which is why in the context of an active election I would consider [[WP:NPOV]] to outweigh [[WP:NPOL]]. In the event that she does not win the election, I would then support redirecting to [[2026 Gorton and Denton by-election]], but this is something which should be discussed after the election, not now. [[User:Chessrat|<b style=”color: #c90; font-family: comic sans ms”>Chessrat</b>]] <sup>([[User talk:Chessrat|<span style=”color:green”>talk</span>]], [[Special:Contribs/Chessrat|<span style=”color:#f78″>contributions</span>]])</sup> 13:04, 31 January 2026 (UTC)

Line 172: Line 166:

* ”’Delete”’: Fails [[WP:NPOL]]. In my view the fact that this article probably should have been deleted five years ago for failing [[WP:GNG]] isn’t a good reason now not to delete it. [[User:Kind Tennis Fan|Kind Tennis Fan]] ([[User talk:Kind Tennis Fan|talk]]) 20:16, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

* ”’Delete”’: Fails [[WP:NPOL]]. In my view the fact that this article probably should have been deleted five years ago for failing [[WP:GNG]] isn’t a good reason now not to delete it. [[User:Kind Tennis Fan|Kind Tennis Fan]] ([[User talk:Kind Tennis Fan|talk]]) 20:16, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

* ”’Delete”’: per Kind Tennis Fan above. Fails [[WP:NPOL]] & [[WP:GNG]]. [[User:Rwendland|Rwendland]] ([[User talk:Rwendland|talk]]) 13:01, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

* ”’Delete”’: per Kind Tennis Fan above. Fails [[WP:NPOL]] & [[WP:GNG]]. [[User:Rwendland|Rwendland]] ([[User talk:Rwendland|talk]]) 13:01, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

⚫ ⚫ ⚫ ⚫ ⚫

Angeliki Stogia (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)

Fails WP:NPOLITICIAN, local councillor and unsuccessful candidate for parliament, no significant coverage in local news, only passing mentions. Tone is promotional and non-neutral and although it was created in 2020 Stogia is being mentioned on social media as possibly standing in the upcoming 2026 Gorton and Denton by-election so I’m suspicious this is something of a resumé. Orange sticker (talk) 00:00, 28 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Wait: If she is selected as the Labour candidate for Gorton and Denton, do not delete. If not, I do not think they are notable enough for an article. F Bman (talk) 16:55, 28 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Waiting is a good idea. Moondragon21 (talk) 16:54, 29 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. She has been selected and this bye-election will be a major political event. Busabalc (talk) 12:50, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Do not delete: She has officially been selected as Labour’s candidate in the by-election. F Bman (talk) 13:03, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
There are thousands of articles in Category:Local politicians in the United Kingdom. How many of them would you like to delete? Rathfelder (talk) 17:43, 29 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Rathfelder: Anyone that isn’t notable should be deleted, feel free to bring any to AfD. Given that there are nearly 20,000 local councillors serving in any one year in the UK most (appropriately) don’t have articles. A large number of those in that category are notable for other reasons, such as later being elected to parliament. AusLondonder (talk) 11:51, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
As many as are not notable. I see that you created this article in the first place. While the by-election is ongoing, it would be wrong to close this discussion, since she might be elected. If she is elected, as a UK MP she becomes notable. If she isn’t elected, there is nothing in the article that really justifies this article not being deleted. MapReader (talk) 14:49, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or Redirect to 2026 Gorton and Denton by-election. As my astute colleagues have mentioned, just being a candidate for political office does not make one automatically notable for WP:NPOL. Calls to keep the article and wait until the by-election happens to discuss the deletion status risk providing WP:UNDUE weight to particular candidates. Some would argue that the fact that Goodwin has an article and Stogia does not does exactly this. That’s neither here nor there in terms of what we are talking about regarding Stogia’s individual notability (i.e. if you have a problem with Goodwins article, AfD that too). Bottom line is that WP is not a candidate directory and any information about the by-election candidates should probable be added to the article about the election itself. Long story short (too late): delete or redirect, no prejudice to recreate if she wins in by-election, but not before. Bkissin (talk) 18:50, 29 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Agree, Delete or redirect, or secondary to either of those, redraft. Wikipedia really is not a directory, but a encyclopaedia of notable topics, of which a lone councillor does not meet. As such the article should either be deleted, or moved into draftspace until the by-election, and should she win, restore to mainspace with a fuller article including why she is notable. As it stands this article does not cut it. Bejakyo (talk) 16:09, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Clearly fails WP:NPOL and article makes no attempt to claim otherwise. The majority of the article is about her unsuccessful candidacies for higher office. About 40% of the text of the article is devoted to a dispute between the council and a bus company regarding changes to a road. Completely fails WP:BASIC as lacking “significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject.” Not one source currently on the article meets that criteria. AusLondonder (talk) 11:56, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Waiting for an extra 4 or 5 days is not unreasonable. Bearian (talk) 17:49, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – A non-notable local government politician. Fails both WP:NPOL and WP:GNG. Most of the article is about failed election bids. We can re-create the article in the event that she wins the by-election. IJA (talk) 10:28, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fails WP:NPOL and doesn’t seem to have any significant coverage (+ the current sources are brief and routine for a local politician and unsuccessful parliamentary candidate, they don’t confer notability). Greenleader(2) (talk) 11:07, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – she has now been selected for the Gorton & Denoton by-election, and given that the article was created in 202 deleting it now she has become significantly more notable would be a bad move, IMO. If the article has been in existence for 6 years it would smack of non-neutral editorial action to delete it now. Espatie (talk) 13:03, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. F Bman (talk) 13:04, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. I just saw her on the Guardian, and as I had no idea who she was, it was through Wikipedia that I found out. Alchemistress (talk) 14:06, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

— Alchemistress (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Agreed. As a candidate in a crucial by-election she should definitely have an entry. ~2026-67735-6 (talk) 14:40, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep for now, wait until after by-election During an ongoing election in which people will go to Wikipedia for neutral information on the candidates, attempting to remove information about one particular candidate whilst leaving articles on other candidates up is against the spirit of WP:NPOV. There is a very good Wired article from 2020 about the issues with deleting Wikipedia articles on current major election candidates, which I would recommend everyone read before making an opinion here— which is why in the context of an active election I would consider WP:NPOV to outweigh WP:NPOL. In the event that she does not win the election, I would then support redirecting to 2026 Gorton and Denton by-election, but this is something which should be discussed after the election, not now. Chessrat (talk, contributions) 13:04, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    It is not our job to advertise for political candidates. Matt Goodwin has a page because he has previously been a notable academic and is not defined on notability based on political activity or a candidacy for elected office. To me it is clearly giving undue weight and a violation of NPOV to give disproportionate weight to Stogia’s candidacy by keeping her page when she is not notable as a local politician, and there is simply not enough reliable and significant coverage or evidence of general notability, while any coverage for this by-election would not confer notability either as it’s routine and event-based. It would also be inconsistent to apply this new standard and also then not have pages for e.g. the Lib Dem candidate (who to be clear also doesn’t meet notability for a page). Ultimately, for fair and neutral information on the by-election that members of the public can access, we have a Wikipedia page for this event, including information about the candidates. It is on the political parties to report and campaign about their candidates individually, not us if the subject clearly fails to meet our policies and standards for a page. Greenleader(2) (talk) 14:09, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment That simply isn’t really an accurate analysis of what Wikipedia does and how the website is used- this is not about “advertising for political candidates” as any well-sourced information, whether positive or negative or neutral, should be included.
    At the moment, if I google “Angeliki Stogia” looking for information about her (which many voters will do), this article is the top google result. If this article were to be deleted now, then any voter googling for information about the candidates will easily find a lot of information about Matt Goodwin on Wikipedia but will find that the information about Angeliki Stogia has been deleted. This is especially concerning when the article has existed for six years with no complaints and it raises real questions of bias/POV editing if the removal of content is only being attempted now that people are looking for it the most.
    Long-term notability concerns can very easily be discussed in a month’s time after the by-election is over. When the article has been up for six years already, another month would not cause any harm. This is not about imposing a new long-term standard, but about being aware of the real NPOV issues of deleting an article about a major candidate in a well-documented by-election whilst the election in question is still ongoing and the page is frequently visited. Not the right timing at all. Chessrat (talk, contributions) 15:07, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    There is no precedent or policy to support these claims, and I am still not clear on what basis you are stating we should keep the page – Stogia is not notable and fails NPOL. There is not well-sourced information that confers notability. There is no policy or consensus that non-notable political candidates should have their own page, and by Wikipedia being the top result, it falsely asserts her notability and undermines our neutrality. Information about the by-election is readily available on the dedicated page, and it would be a major breach of our impartiality as an encyclopedia with robust standards to override this and give undue leniency and weight to one particular political candidate. Many previous AfDs have seen candidates in ongoing elections have pages deleted or redirected if not notable – the NPOV issue would be if we kept the page against all odds, and which would also be unfair to the other parties with equally non-notable candidates who don’t have their own pages. Greenleader(2) (talk) 18:44, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The Wired article is interesting, but it’s talking about a US Senate candidate, which is a very different scale to a candidate for a Commons by-election. ~2026-53323-5 (talk) 15:00, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The House of Commons is the UK’s main legislative assembly, so in fact an election of a member of the House of Commons is the direct British equivalent of the election of a House/Senate member in the US. Chessrat (talk, contributions) 15:09, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

That is, if I might say so, a very silly comparison. The Wired article is referring to someone standing to be one of 2 Senators for Iowa, which has a population of 3.2 million, so that’s kinda representing 1.6 million people. Gorton & Denton has an electorate of about 74,000. It’s a different order of magnitude. It’s closer to a seat in the Iowa House of Representatives. There was far more being written about the candidate in the Wired case over a long time than about Stogia now. Bondegezou (talk) 19:17, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Chessrat, WP:NPOV does not apply to whether an article should exist, or not. It solely applies to the content of an existing article. Here is how it describes itself ‘in a nutshell’: Articles must not take sides, but should explain the sides, fairly and without editorial bias. This applies to both what you say and how you say it. It determines the type and quality of material acceptable in Wikipedia articles, and not what articles should exist. I’d be surprised if the closer of this AfD takes the NPOV policy into account.
The only thing that matters here is whether the subject can pass the notability threshold as described in WP:NOTABILITY, which, ‘in a nutshell’ is: Wikipedia articles cover notable topics—those that have gained sufficiently significant attention by the world at large and over a period of time, and are not outside the scope of Wikipedia. We consider evidence from reliable and independent sources to gauge this attention. The notability guideline does not determine the content of articles, but only whether the topic may have its own article. — DeFacto (talk). 16:33, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • The page should not be deleted for the following reasons.
Stogia is standing the Gorton and Denton byelection which may have historical significance. The by election is a 3 race between Labour, Reform and Greens, where the outcome will have significance for the trajectory of British politics.
The result has the potential to mark a turning point in UK electoral history. As a participant in this moment, Stogia’s page should remain to allow users to research the candidate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ~2026-68645-5 (talk) 13:37, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
As of now she is the official Labour candidate in a milestone by-election that will be a measure of the true Labour vote and the popularity of The Greens and Reform. Events around her and so her at least for now are important and deserving of an article. ~2026-68753-9 (talk) 13:51, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I second and third that. Alchemistress (talk) 14:07, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
It is an election that has UK political journalists excited, but it’s not an election of national importance. Labour will still have a stonking majority in the Commons whoever wins. Bondegezou (talk) 19:18, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

It is of national interest, as it will determine the popularity of Starmer, if Labour loses to Reform or the Greens, it could be weaken his position as PM.
AGiantPulsatingMindisaTerribleThingtoWaste (talk) 14:45, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
That doesn’t follow – or you have a lot of articles now to go create… MapReader (talk) 06:20, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

— AGiantPulsatingMindisaTerribleThingtoWaste (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

  • Keep as per comments above. She has selected as the Labour candidate for Gorton and Denton. Gorton and Denton is seen as a by-election of national interest in Britain. Therefore *keep*, at least until after the election. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anameofmyveryown (talk • contribs) 14:21, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    This article was nominated for deletion due to a lack of notability. Simply being an election candidate isn’t enough to pass WP:NPOL. If you think this article is notable for other reasons, WP:GNG suggests that there should be coverage in secondary sources. Are you aware of any secondary sources about this article to suggest notability? IJA (talk) 11:06, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as she fails WP:NPOL, which says being an “unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability”, and has no other obvious claim to notability given in the article. If she gets elected, that will change. — DeFacto (talk). 14:25, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Clearly fails WP:NPOL. No evidence she passes WP:GNG. If she wins the by-election, and she’s currently only third in the betting odds, then an article can be created. ~2026-53323-5 (talk) 14:56, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Keep The article has existed for 5 years, the suggestion for deletion was made 3 days ago at around the time Stogia was being discussed as candidate for the “Burnham Refused” constituency. Taking the timings into account, to delete before the by-election in three weeks time would appear rushed and possibly partisan.Byeways (talk) 15:29, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
— Byeways (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Wait until after the results are announced. Makes little sense to remove a longstanding article right as it becomes nationally significant. Eastwood Park and strabane (talk) 17:49, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Keep with a moratorium against *any* action until after 26 February 2026, pending results per Chessrat. In this case there is an obligation for NPOV to outweigh NPOL: Stogia’s article has been on for more than six years at this point and we could have had nominated it for AfD at any time before now. For Wikipedia to delete the article while a by-election for the House of Commons is active, when one other candidate has an article (in this case, Matt Goodwin of Reform), could be seen and interpreted as Wikipedia thumbing the scale against Labour and for Reform. Frank(has DemoCracy DeprivaTion) 15:29, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Goodwin has an article due to his notability in academics and in the media, not due to his political activity. We don’t have articles on other candidates because they’re not notable individuals. Wikipedia’s responsibly is to be an encyclopaedia. Wikipedia is not an election guide. IJA (talk) 15:43, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not an election guide, that I agree. But as Chessrat said, we had a subpar article for six years, and only now, now that Angeliki Stogia is relevant to the election, that an AfD was lodged against the article. Voters seeking information on Stogia will find her Wikipedia article as the very first result on a cursory google search; if the article is deleted now, we will be the ones violating any neutral point of view by becoming directly involved in the by-election. Frank(has DemoCracy DeprivaTion) 15:54, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

We’re giving undue weight to Stogia by having an article on her when she doesn’t meet WP:GNG, and not having articles on the LibDem and Green candidates etc who also don’t meet GNG. The Green candidate is also a councillor and is just as notable as Stogia. Voters seeking info on the other candidates won’t be able to look up the green candidate on Wikipedia either. We have the by-election article which includes info on the candidates. That is sufficient and fair for an encyclopaedia. IJA (talk) 16:02, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

A false equivalence. Unlike Angeliki Stogia, Hannah Spencer has never had a Wikipedia article to begin with, and thus the average voter would not see any information in the first place. The fact that Stogia’s article is only nominated for AfD during the run-up to the by-election means that any action will be weaponised as a partisan matter: this article would have been an easy delete-via-NPOL even a few weeks ago, but now is absolutely not the case and the moratorium must stand for NPOV reasons; any consensus to delete now is Wikipedia directly violating its policy of a Neutral Point of View and will land us in the news for the wrong reasons. Frank(has DemoCracy DeprivaTion) 16:20, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Your argument is basically that because she already has an article, we should be biased and keep the article because it would be biased to delete it. I’m sorry but despite your flawed logic, Wikipedia policies and guidelines don’t support keeping this article due to a lack of notability. IJA (talk) 16:36, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Upholding our notability requirements is not a violation of NPOV. Goodwin has an article because he is independently notable. Just because one candidate for office has an article, which will be the case whenever an incumbent is contesting, does not mean other candidates automatically get articles irrespective of notability. As IJA said the Green candidate is also a councillor and previously ran for mayor of Greater Manchester. They are likely more notable than this subject. To paraphrase could keeping this article in violation of notability requirements and not having an article for the Greens be seen and interpreted as Wikipedia thumbing the scale against Greens and for Labour? AusLondonder (talk) 16:42, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly, keeping this article could be in violation of NPOV as we would be giving undue weight to this candidate, and thus giving a pro-Labour bias. Another candidate is arguably more notable but they don’t have an article as they fail NPOL and GNG. This article also fails NPOL and GNG, so it should be deleted; additionally, it should be deleted to preserve a NPOV. IJA (talk) 16:54, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I’d argue any move to delete preexisting articles (in this case, one that traces back to December 2020) at a time when the person is relevant in the news during an election, constitutes a far greater violation of NPOV if not outright election interference, than simply never having an article to begin with. Whether or not her notability is warranted, as of now Angeliki Stogia has a Wikipedia article, and a move from us to delete it is us directly changing the balance of the election.
This isn’t an article created a few weeks ago just to advertise a candidate for the election (as much as the nom thinks of it as a resumé), it’s one that has been there for years and as Pahari Sahib mentioned below, only nominated because of a rise in notability.
Go ahead and create an article for Hannah Spencer if you believe the current situation is Wikipedia thumbing the scale for Labour against the Greens. I stand by my position that no move should be made until after the by-election is conducted on 26 February. Frank(has DemoCracy DeprivaTion) 19:12, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

There is no policy or consensus-based case to keep this page. What is a clear breach of neutrality is overriding our robust standards to give undue and disproportionate attention to a non-notable political candidate who does not warrant having their own page. Every AfD I can remember for an active candidate in an election has seen deletion or a redirect if not individually notable. Spencer does not qualify for a page currently, and neither does Stogia. But it seems deeply unfair that we would change the rules for the latter for no reason, surely you can see how the page remaining is therefore a clear breach of neutrality and undermining of policy? Greenleader(2) (talk) 19:40, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Kalamikid: You’ve stated that “she was notable for a page as many councillors are”. Please can you elaborate on this and give evidence as to why you believe that she is notable? As far as I can tell, there is no evidence to suggest that she is notable per WP:NPOL and WP:GNG. IJA (talk) 17:00, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

WP:GNG states that sources should be secondary sources. To suggest notability, are you aware of any secondary sources about Angeliki Stogia? IJA (talk) 17:14, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The timing of the proposed deletion appears notable. If the first reaction to something heard on social media about a person being a candidate in a noteable by-election, three days before the candidate is confirmed, is to attempt to delete the wikipedia page for that person, then never mind the suspicions of the proposed deleter (“I’m suspicious this is something of a resumé”), suspicion could fall upon the proposed deleter as having a motive for deletion WP:GAME other than the good faith assumption that they’re a stickler for guidelines with exceptionally poor timing. I love guidelines too, but not if they’re being used to remove what readers see before a notable up-and-coming by-election. To delete a 6-year old article based on its subject being announced on social media three days before official confirmation of their running would be more than contraversial. It would run the risk of wikipedia being viewed as biased or partisan. A search on all search engines brings Wikipedia page for this persona as the first hit. As per Chessrat and Frank, keep until after the election to maintain WP:NPOV, and dependent on outcome, redirect to 2026 Gorton and Denton by-election ensuring a brief and appropriate synopsis of her biography is transferred to the appropriate section. Luther Blissetts (talk) 17:23, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Rather ironically her rise to prominence seems to have triggered the request to delete the article about her, back in December 2020 when the article was created there would have been good rationale for deletion but now she’s making national headlines and has risen to prominence, this seems to have increased views of her article and paradoxically resulted in it being nominated for deletion. Pahari Sahib 17:32, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Its clearly not going to be deleted before the election. Wouldnt it be best to withdraw this proposal and revisit it next month? Rathfelder (talk) 17:34, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I agree. It would be best to withdraw this proposal and revist next month.
It’s not a great look having the ‘editor proposed deletion’ box on the article at this moment in time. Luther Blissetts (talk) 17:42, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The article fails both WP:GNG and WP:NPOL. We should uphold our own policies on Wikipedia and this article should be deleted ASAP. IJA (talk) 17:46, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The way to avoid having a proposed deletion box at this moment in time is for editors to be more thorough at purging articles that don’t meet WP:NPOL at all times. We shouldn’t compound our mistake by ignoring our own rules now. Bondegezou (talk) 19:22, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Can someone explain the reason for the proposed deletion? — Preceding unsigned comment added by ~2026-69125-9 (talk) 17:33, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question: For those that support keeping the article or waiting until the by-election result, if the Angeliki Stogia article stays up, then per WP:NPOV should the draft article for the Green candidate, Draft:Hannah Spencer, be approved? Pretzel Quetzal (talk) 19:48, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    I would say that either both or none should be up during the by-election. Both politicians are roughly the same under WP:NPOL and therefore including one but not the other would violate WP:NPOV. Including Stogia’s article but not Spencer’s article only because Stogia’s was created by a user before the by-election would be silly. Pretzel Quetzal (talk) 19:55, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    They are entirely different cases, and WP:NPOV is not relevant. Draft:Hannah Spencer was created on 30 January 2026 for the benefit of the byelection. Angeliki Stogia was created on 7 December 2020.— Toddy1 (talk) 21:07, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    I’m aware the two are different cases, my issue is that the difference between the cases is solely based on when the article was created. That means you’d have two politicians with very similar notability in a highly publicised by-election, but only one has an article – because a Wikipedia user 6 years ago made an article on a local councillor and no one spotted that it didn’t meet WP:NPOL. Pretzel Quetzal (talk) 21:39, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Weak “yes”, but not really related – I don’t think that’s as crucial because the very act of deleting Angeliki Stogia’s article with this timing (being nominated for deletion exactly as she started to be discussed as a candidate) would be a clear NPOV violation, whereas simply “not creating an article on someone with arguable notability” is harder to see as an NPOV issue. Whilst it does make some sense to do what you suggest, I don’t think it should be tied to this AfD as it’s an unrelated discussion. Chessrat (talk, contributions) 21:09, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    I agree that this AfD shouldn’t be deciding the approval of the Spencer article, but I think it’s relevant to consider as a consequence of the AfD decision.
    As this is shaping to be a very publicised and close by-election, I think it’s likely that if there is an article for Stogia but not Spencer, there will be questions raised about why that is the case. I don’t think that just the presence of scrutiny means we must create an article for Spencer, but at the very least we would need an answer to that question that is more satisfactory than “because a Wikipedia user 6 years ago made an article on a local councillor, and no one spotted that it didn’t meet WP:NPOL guidelines”. Pretzel Quetzal (talk) 21:48, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    This is why we shouldn’t let political concerns come into this at all and this article should be deleted. All we should be considering is WP:NPOL and WP:BASIC. That is the true application of NPOV. If we say this article must be kept because the subject is a by-election candidate then we’re overturning years of precedent in relation to unelected candidates not being notable by virtue of their candidacies and opening the floodgates to Wikipedia becoming a repository of candidate biographies. AusLondonder (talk) 22:00, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    This is not a discussion of long-term notability though- that is not in question. It’s a discussion about whether “during an ongoing election” is appropriate timing for removing existing content.
    Perhaps after this AfD is over it will be worth discussing changes/clarifications to WP:NPOL to discuss more broadly what should be done in this sort of situation in the future. so that there is a consistent guideline for it. But for now I think we need to focus on the matter at hand rather than anything more broadly. Chessrat (talk, contributions) 22:13, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    AfD is solely a discussion of notability. Political considerations shouldn’t come into it. When pages are created for candidates during national elections (most commonly the US, UK, Australia and India) they are routinely deleted at AfD. If you’d like I’ll look back at my AfD history for some of the many which have been deleted. AusLondonder (talk) 00:54, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Not exactly crucial to the issue at hand, but it is a provisional yes from me. I said it as much, if editors think that Angeliki Stogia’s article existing is us thumbing the scale for Labour and against the Greens, then go ahead and create an article for Hannah Spencer instead of deleting Stogia’s article during the election. We already have at least two other candidates – Matt Goodwin of Reform as previously mentioned, but also Nick Buckley of Advance UK – who have Wikipedia articles. Frank(has DemoCracy DeprivaTion) 04:06, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    Just to respond to that second point, editors have created Draft:Hannah Spencer which is already of similar length to the Stogia article. The submission for creation was rejected yesterday on the grounds of WP:NPOL. Pretzel Quetzal (talk) 12:17, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    This AfD should only be about keeping or deleting this article, and not about creating a new article about another individual. That being said, we should only have articles about politicians if they meet our notability policies such as WP:NPOL and/or WP:GNG. Neither this article nor the proposed Hannah Spencer article meet NPOL and/or GNG therefore neither article should exist until they are deemed to be notable. IJA (talk) 10:28, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment: Note for the closing admin – this may be an odd request, but based on the responses to my question so far, I strongly urge you to consider giving a recommendation on Draft:Hannah Spencer based on the outcome of this AfD. Both Stogia and Spencer are both candidates in a highly publicised by-election who both: are sitting local councillors, ran unsuccessfully for Parliament in 2024, and ran unsuccessfully for one other office (Stogia for European Parliament, Spencer for Mayor of Greater Manchester).

    • If the decision is made to keep the Stogia article during the by-election, on the basis that WP:NPOV outweighs WP:NPOL (per Chessrat and Frank), it should be made clear whether Draft:Hannah Spencer should then be approved on the same grounds. And if the same does not apply to the Spencer article, and that it should remain a draft, a sufficient explanation should be given as to why this is the case.
    • If the decision is made to delete the Stogia article during the by-election as it fails WP:NPOL (per AusLondoner and IJA), it follows naturally that the Spencer article also fails WP:NPOL and should remain in the draftspace.
    Pretzel Quetzal (talk) 14:40, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Would seem very odd to delete now when she is more prominent after selection as Labours by election candidate — Preceding unsigned comment added by ~2026-68356-0 (talk) 19:55, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I find it odd that people are bringing up election fairness as a reason to keep rather than WP:GNG. See Wikipedia:An article about yourself isn’t necessarily a good thing: is Matt Goodwin‘s campaign aided by us knowing that he has been considered incendiary for his comments on riots, that he doesn’t consider all British-born people British, or that he made some bad political predictions and had to eat a page on TV? We are not British broadcast television that has to give an equal coverage to all candidates. Stogia is a local councillor, who has a small amount of local coverage for local issues, such as the pedestrianisation mentioned on the page. You could find that about any of the 20,000 councillors mentioned above by AusLondonder. I don’t know how people are considering it a Rubicon moment that she’s the official Labour candidate, if she was already one two years ago, and was not elected. Let’s wait for the result, then either: keep this page, make one on Spencer, or expand Goodwin’s (other candidates are available). Unknown Temptation (talk) 22:42, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment If your position is “Let’s wait for the result, then keep this page if she wins”, then I think that counts as a “wait”/”keep” rather than as a “delete”, so I would suggest bolding that bit so that the closer can see it easily.
    This discussion isn’t about whether the article should be kept long-term; it is about whether the article should be deleted now, whilst the by-election is still ongoing. Most of the people replying “keep”/”wait” agree that it would likely make sense to turn it into a redirect in a month’s time after the by-election is over if she does not win. Chessrat (talk, contributions) 23:03, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
That doesn’t work as an argument because of WP:NTEMP. If someone is deemed notable, then they are notable for ever. The idea that an article might be notable for a short period of time is contrary to how Wikipedia works. We can’t invent some WP:LOCALCONSENSUS to ignore bits of WP:N. ~2026-53323-5 (talk) 23:12, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

If parts of WP:N are in conflict with WP:NPOV and you have to prioritize one, I would prioritize WP:NPOV. Chessrat (talk, contributions) 02:05, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Your argument that NPOV has any application here is tenuous. Nothing in the language at WP:NPOV suggests your interpretation. I am not aware of any prior AfDs using the reasoning offered. You offer no precedents. ~2026-53323-5 (talk) 08:50, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Correct, NPOV has got absolutely nothing to do with AfD which determines notability in accordance with policy. AusLondonder (talk) 12:02, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Editors are not under an obligation to only take into account to one policy whilst ignoring all other policies. There are serious concerns about the motivation for the timing of trying to delete an article which has existed for six years.
@~2026-53323-5: I did mention a precedent earlier: the attempted deletion of Theresa Greenfield’s article in 2020. Link to Wired article. Chessrat (talk, contributions) 14:32, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

You argue that Theresa Greenfield represents a precedent. But the AfD for that article (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Theresa Greenfield) decided to delete and three deletion reviews affirmed that decision. As far as I can see, the article was eventually re-created two months later when a large amount of reporting about her had accumulated. So, that precedent would imply that the Stogia article should be deleted, unless we see material to support a WP:GNG decision. Bondegezou (talk) 19:30, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    • Goodness, I wasn’t expecting a tangent this long after my comment. If you found it ambiguous, as it’s bad practice to edit my own comment, I’ll rephrase the last sentence: “Let’s wait for the result, then either: keep recreate this page, make one on Spencer, or expand Goodwin’s (other candidates are available)”. Unknown Temptation (talk) 15:51, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why is no-one considering a simple redirect to 2026 Gorton and Denton by-election which should contain all relevant info we have about the candidate. That would solve the problem of it being the top hit on google as people are redirected, no information or page is deleted, every candidate appears to be treated the same to normal readers. Then if Labour wins, Stogia’s article can be split back out as now. Jdcooper (talk) 01:40, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

— Cosmite (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

— AlfiesHooman (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Agree with you strongly. I read the article to find out a bit about its subject, and found it quite informative, well referenced and admirably free from pro or anti judgments. ~2026-69662-4 (talk) 10:31, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
This article was nominated for deletion due to a lack of notability. Simply being an election candidate isn’t enough to pass WP:NPOL. If you think this article is notable for other reasons, WP:GNG suggests that there should be coverage in secondary sources. Are you aware of any secondary sources about this article to suggest notability? IJA (talk) 11:04, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note for the closing admin – Please consider the following when making the closure of this AfD. This article was nominated for deletion due to a lack of notability per WP:NPOL (also WP:GNG). The arguments used to support keeping this article are not in relation to notability. Instead, the arguments used to oppose the article’s deletion are in relation to the article’s age, the timing of the AfD, and perceived election unfairness. When making the closure of this AfD, I urge you to consider if notability has been adequately demonstrated by those who support keeping this article as that was why the article was nominated for deletion. Kind regards IJA (talk) 10:48, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Completely endorse this. The influx of brand new SPAs and IPs who have no regard for our core notability requirements and should be discounted when determining consensus based on solid policy arguments. AusLondonder (talk) 12:00, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment There seem to be several editors arguing that WP:NPOL should rigidly be seen as outweighing WP:NPOV regardless of the circumstances, without any attempt to explain why that should be the case or engage with other editors’ concerns. I would hope that the closer takes all concerns and all policies into account, and bears in the mind the issues that emerged when a similar deletion was attempted in 2020. Chessrat (talk, contributions) 14:41, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    “There seem to be several editors arguing that WP:NPOL should rigidly be seen as outweighing WP:NPOV regardless of the circumstances” – no one has made that argument. Additionally, WP:NPOV specifically applies to the content within an article, not whether an article should exist or not. Arguably, we are giving undue weight by having an article on a non-notable individual standing in election. IJA (talk) 15:53, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – let’s not forget, folks, that notability does not come under policy, but under guidelines. And also that all editors’ views are valid, irrespective of how new they are. We were all new once. Tony Holkham (Talk) 12:24, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete (changed my mind; please see below for my view and rationale published yesterday). Even though her notability and coverage is currently on the rise due to an important by-election, more secondary sources would need to be made available before notability threshold as set in WP:NPOL is met. ***Note: If unelected, notability would need to be reviewed in a couple of months, I believe. —Aethalides (talk) 15:46, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for now. Had I come across this article a week ago, I would have agreed that there might be lack of notability as per WP:NPOL. The very reason I am reading this –as several fellow editors have pointed out– is Stogia’s recent press coverage in relation to her participation in a critically important by-election. In my case, it was because of live television coverage and an online BBC News article. If, following the by-election, she is not elected, but has become a “… local political figure [who has] received significant press coverage” (NPO) by giving interviews etc then the article should not be deleted. The BBC is a reliable secondary source and if several others are added to it, then a review will be necessary. Besides, it is often the case that a politician’s notability is established due to association to a significant event and it appears that might be case here, following Andy Burnham being denied permission to enter the contest, which made national headlines. Once an individual becomes notable, even in that way, there will be several suitable sources with ” more than a trivial mention, but [the individual] does not need to be the main topic of the source material” (Wikipedia:Notability#significant coverage) . Aethalides (talk) 14:17, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  • I add a comment in support of your opinion.
    I see that a number of comments are made as if current very significant political events in respect of the by election (cf Burnham being deemed ineligible by the Labour Party’s NEC) are irrelevant and that Wikipedia should follow its guidelines regardless. There might be more merit in this argument were the Wikipedia entry for Angeliki Stogia one that had been submitted since she had been selected as the candidate. The entry has, unarguably, stood the test of time without review or challenge. Whether it should have done has to be set aside as a consideration, because should it be decided to delete the entry as a result of the recent proposal, and Ms Stogia’s public prominence, it is inevitable that Wikipedia’s reputation will be damaged, becoming a story in itself of Wikipedia’s lack of impartiality.
    I visited the Wikipedia entry to Angelika Stogia as I rely on Wikipedia’s reputation for a summary of facts about any given person (who has an entry). I imagine a great many other users will be doing or have done the same thing. I noted in some comments that it was being argued that as Wikipedia has a separate page for the by-election that this entry can be deleted, but I think it is naive as it does not take into account the effect of deleting the entry at this time. Deletion will undoubtedly be viewed by those who know little or nothing about Wikipedia’s guidelines on criteria for notability as an act which has been taken for political reasons, regardless of the attempts by those who might reach such a decision to try to be objective. That will be damaging to Wikipedia and probably impossible to counter in general public perception. It should be avoided.
    In terms of notability criteria, as understood by lay readers, there are more than adequate grounds for Ms Stogia to be counted notable. The fact that she is now a substitute for Mr Burnham, in the public’s mind, in a critically significant by-election which is being defined as a make or break for the UK Prime Minister’s standing in his party and a watershed for The Reform Party is of profound political significance.
    I think a deletion of the entry would be a judgemental mistake on both technical grounds and in terms of its reputational risk to Wikipedia.Xerxes Oak (talk) 16:02, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

— Xerxes Oak (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

  • @Αιθαλίδης: News reported as an event occurs is considered a primary source, not a secondary source. BBC News in this instance would be a primary source [1] IJA (talk) 16:21, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • IJA Point taken. I still feel it is extremely likely that more sources are becoming available or will become available, including secondary ones eg. an interview, a local or Westminster politician making comments speaking to the media, in the following days and weeks. These already contribute to a rise in her notability, especially given this by-election is seen as important. Aethalides (talk) 18:27, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
We have to make a decision on what currently exists, not on what might exist in the future. If the article is deleted and then more sourcing appears, or Stogia becomes obviously notable by virtue of being elected an MP, then it’s only a couple of clicks to restore the article and go from there. Bondegezou (talk) 08:09, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The question is whether the subject is notable, not whether its a good article. Rathfelder (talk) 10:42, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I cannot see why a political status only becomes important to Wikipedia when someone becomes, or is nominated to become, an MP. Deleting a page just because someone feels that a person is not important enough to warrant having an entry is prone to filtering everything down to popularism. As long as the information on the page is factually correct it should not be deleted.GeorgeSallows (talk) 16:43, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

— GeorgeSallows (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

See Wikipedia:Notability. PatGallacher (talk) 20:36, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
In support of the Keep position, I would point at the pageview statistics

https://pageviews.wmcloud.org/?project=en.wikipedia.org&platform=all-access&agent=user&redirects=0&range=latest-20&pages=Angeliki_Stogia

40,000 page views is an awful lot for a person that some here are claiming is not notable. Espatie (talk) 16:42, 2 February 2026 (UTC)
— Espatie (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

@Espatie: – Page views on Wikipedia is not an indicator of notability and is not covered in WP:GNG. WP:GNG suggests that there should be coverage in secondary sources. Are you aware of any secondary sources about this article to suggest notability? IJA (talk) 16:56, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Must Read

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Scroll to Top