Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alex Eaglesham


 * 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 Libertarian Party of Canada candidates, 1980 Canadian federal election. King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 09:21, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Alex Eaglesham

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

Does not meet WP:POLITICIAN. Has never been elected, lead a party that has never held a seat. West Eddy (talk) 23:00, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions.  — Frankie (talk) 23:27, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions.  — Frankie (talk) 23:27, 27 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Any past consensus to "keep all leaders of political parties" has long since been overridden by Wikipedia's core requirement that biographies of living persons need to be sourced to the hilt or get canned; there is no "somebody might improve it someday" exemption for BLPs anymore. Keep if the article is improved by close; redirect to the party if it isn't. Notability is a question of the quality of sources that are or aren't present in the article, not a question of blanket "all X are notable" proclamations — if the sources aren't there, then an article does not get to stay. Bearcat (talk) 04:13, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 3 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 22:45, 4 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Redirect to Libertarian Party of Canada candidates, 1980 Canadian federal election. Nothing shows up on Google. minor political candidate. Doesn't meet WP:POLITICIAN or WP:BIO. EncyclopediaUpdaticus (talk) 15:48, 9 May 2012 (UTC)


 * weak Keep  minor party, but national head.  there is no " requirement that biographies of living persons need to be sourced to the hilt or get canned; there is no "somebody might improve it someday" exemption for BLPs anymore", There is a requirement that BLPs have a RS, which I interpret as a sufficiently RS to provide WP:V for at least some of the key claims WP:BLPPROD.  Such is present, and whether we think it sufficient for notability is a matter of our own judgment. The question of notability is whatever we decide here. Bearcat, provide some evidence for your statement please--I cannot find the phrase "sourced to the hilt" on any WP policy page, or anywhere in WP except your own repeated unsourced assertions at AfDs.    DGG ( talk ) 01:50, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Er, last I checked people were allowed to paraphrase policy in an argument, and were not restricted to quoting it verbatim — so the fact that you can't specifically find the exact phrase "sourced to the hilt" in a policy document is irrelevant. The fact is that our notability policy quite explicitly requires that the article topic has been the subject of substantial coverage in reliable sources; almost every one of the minor politicians that have been discussed here has an article which quite explicitly fails one or both of those two criteria. And further, I've voted an unqualified keep in every single case where the article had sufficient sourcing in valid sources — and even in the ones where the sourcing wasn't up to scratch, I've still been quite clear that a political party leader's article is eligible to be kept if it gets improved with sufficient coverage in reliable sources. While the ability to point to one article in one reliable source might certainly be sufficient to make an article ineligible for speedy, cursory coverage and/or unreliable sources do not confer sufficient notability to necessarily pass a full AFD if nobody's willing to take the time to spruce it up to a properly keepable standard. So I'll thank you kindly to stop misrepresenting my position. Bearcat (talk) 00:50, 12 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete or redirect. Many, maybe most, party leaders are notable.  But, I don't think it's a universal rule.  We have three "sources".  One is a government page with election results with almost no info, then there's his own letter which is useless, and then there's the micro mini bio which is published about all candidates in every election.  Such micro mini bios of all candidates generally repeat whatever the candidate says, and aren't even checked before being printed (not a huge deal in this case, since it's insignificant and uncontentious).  I wouldn't go as far as saying we have to have BLPs "sourced to the hilt", but think BLP policy means a rise in standards above what we had before.  I did do a search for Canadian magazines on ProQuest, and found five results for Alex+Eaglesham+libertarian, but each were trivial mentions (Every one had him included in a list of all candidates, and not even mentioned in the prose of the article).  Keep in mind I was able to find substantial coverage of the election of other candidates in another search.  If this had even one reliable source that that focussed on him, I'd say keep, or be neutral.  Surely we can simply ask for one independently verified fact about this candidate which goes beyond what is reported for every single other candidate in every election.  Even the fact he was a leader is mentioned only by him, his party, and the government, but nobody else seemed to care enough to note this fact, which is the sole claim of notability.   --Rob (talk) 02:08, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
 * 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.