Talk:Christine Caughey

This article was nominated for deletion on 21 October 2007. The result of the discussion was no consensus.

This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.

If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.

Biography: Politics and Government

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
	This article is supported by the politics and government work group (assessed as Low-importance).

Untitled

This page must not be deleted. There are many private citizens listed on Wikipedia, this is no reason for her article to be deleted. Caughey still remains an important voice in Auckland politics.

This page should be scheduled for deletion given that Christine Caughey was not successful in re-election and is now a private citizen. FriendlySam 22:55, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to see the second two paragraphs significantly altered so that they no longer contain unsubstantiated claims/accusations. How do I go about this? If this is a biographical page, then it should not contain comments that have obviously been written by opponents of Christine Caughey in an attempt to discredit her. There are other fora for those issues to be debated but a biography on Wikipedia is not the appropriate place. I can't believe that the editors won't allow me to remove the info when it is not even verified. The one reference in the third paragraph is hardly reliable and even then, does not completely support the claims being made.

7 Aug. 7.10pm -- I have tried to balance out some of the claims and hope they will be left.

7. Aug 10pm -- I have reversed your changes because it is clear that Christine Caughey broke her promises on rates, and do support the City Vision ticket as a part of the majority bloc on council.

There are a number of posts on various blogs regarding the subject's comments in a Parliamentary select committee, which appear to be controversial and also relevant to Wikipedia. First test - is the subject's statements in a submission worthy of note? I say yes, because the subject is a government appointee and politician, and the comments are official, insofar as they are to a select committee of Parliament. I think the comments should be edited to remove POV but included in the body of the main article. Rather than refer to the blogs themselves (which are demonstrably POV), the link should be to the Parliamentary Submission that the subject made. Is that agreeable? --Lawgradnz (talk) 23:21, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not every "official" comment of a politician is worth including in an article. What other such comments has Caughey made? Most government appointees probably make very many submissions over their career. This is certainly not worth including because it mentions Wikipedia - see WP:SELFREF. Exactly why is it important?-gadfium 06:52, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]