Talk:Mary Wooldridge

message: This article is profiling a "not notable" political candidate. I am considering nominating it for deletion. What do you others think?  There is no certainty she will be elected - but it would be appropriate to have an article if she is. In the meanwhile, the article is fairly clearly an attempt to build her profile during the 2006 campaign. I understand that political candidates are generally not considered worthy of articles (with very few exceptions). IP address edits suggest there may be some vanity edits - or Liberal Party staffers on the job Peter Campbell Talk! 23:57, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd say that being a candidate in an almost-definitely-winnable seat makes you notable; saying "oh, she'll definitely have an article in six months, but not now" doesn't make a lot of sense to me. It's pretty certain that she will be elected - although Doncaster is theoretically a marginal Liberal seat, in the current electoral climate, the chances are utterly negligible that Labor will pick up any seats at all. At this point, it would take a major turn of fortune for the government for Doncaster even to be realistically in their sights. There is precedent for election candidates having articles, and considering the likelihood that she will be elected, I see no harm in keeping this around until the inevitable happens. Rebecca 03:38, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  All the same, I might remove the politician stub, as she is not a politician.  --Roisterer 05:19, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I think this is appropriate. Candidates are not politicians until they are elected.  A "Liberal political candidate" sub category is needed to be accurate. I can live with the article remaining. In terms of precedent, this  means that every candidate in a seat they are considered likely to win is now entitled to an article Peter Campbell Talk! 05:24, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think it's an unreasonable standard to be setting, seeing as they're almost definitely going to need them down the line, and it means that we'll have the content there when people are taking an interest during the election campaign. Rebecca 05:40, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, this will generate activity and interest, but the puff pieces that party campaign teams and staffers will inevitablity write will need to be edited & checked for POV. Peter Campbell Talk! 05:50, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: She has now been elected and I think you will find her very notable.  Appinted to three shadow ministries in your first month in Parliament is quite an achievement.--Victor 09:43, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No doubt about it Mary achieved notability by being elected to Parliament (see: Wikipedia:Notability (people)). The above discussion relates to a time before she achieved such notablility, and was not at the time strictly elegable for an article. No doubt all the more heated because it was conducted in an election campaign context, and her major opponent had achieved notability, and thus had a page. BTW it is generally considered bad form to delete anything from an article talk page, unless a simple copyed. Statements you wrote you want withdrawn can be struck through. If the page reaches an unacceptable length older parts of the page can be archived. Of course anything that constitutes a libel or obscenity should be removed. -- Michael Johnson 05:27, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Point taken Michael.  Have a great day.--Victor 03:21, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Not notable? 

message: I added the tag on the grounds that the sources used so far are autobiographical in nature, and I couldn't find a more accurate tag. Andjam 04:18, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I removed it. It implies that Mary Wooldridge wrote the article and there's no evidence she did.  Sarah Ewart (Talk) 04:45, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Autobiographical tag 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Mary Wooldridge. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070811084356/http://www.aph.gov.au/senate/committee/economics_ctte/estimates/bud_0405/industry/index.htm to http://www.aph.gov.au/SENATE/committee/economics_ctte/estimates/bud_0405/industry/index.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:51, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified (January 2018)