Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Benjamin Woodman


 * 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 delete. SpinningSpark 12:35, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Benjamin Woodman

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Political candidates are not notable as per WP:NPOL, does not satisfy any other WP:BIO notability requirements. FUNgus guy (talk) 05:17, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

This article does not meet Wikipedia's politician notability criteria, and there's nothing here to suggest it qualifies as notable under any other biographical notability criteria. I propose it be deleted. Previous deletion request removed with the following explanation:
 * Removed proposed deletion (subject's youth and linguistic background very unique in Quebec politics, position held was occupied previously by Minister of Foreign Affairs, major daily newspaper in Quebec (Le Droit) references subject (signed by 216.218.29.159)

None of these reasons qualify for page status under WP:NPOL. Being "young" (30 isn't that young) doesn't qualify, his linguistic background is not mentioned in the article, being the candidate after the Minister of Foreign Affairs doesn't qualify, and just because Le Droit mentions he was nominated to run doesn't qualify. If he wins the election, then this biography would qualify under WP:NPOL. FUNgus guy (talk) 05:40, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
 * To be fair, the seat he's running for is in Quebec — so based on his name and the fact that he attended John Abbott College, we can conclude that the "unique" linguistic background that's being claimed for him is that he's an anglophone rather than a francophone. But anglophones in Quebec, while they are a minority group, are neither a rare nor a "poorly represented in politics" one — if he were the first anglophone ever to run for political office in the entire province, then the decliner might have a valid point. But he's nowhere close to being that — he's not even the first anglophone ever to run for political office in his own district. Bearcat (talk) 18:47, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Quebec-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:39, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:39, 7 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Nominator is correct: nothing here entitles him to keep an article at the present time under WP:NPOL. He'll certainly qualify for an article if he wins the seat when the election is held, but is not entitled to keep a campaign brochure on Wikipedia so long as a mere candidacy is the substance of his notability. To qualify him for an article right now, you'd have to be able to make a strong and properly sourced case that he was already notable enough to have an article for something other than the candidacy itself, e.g. as a writer or an athlete or a previous holder of a different notable political office. And make no mistake, as "sourced" as this article is there's only one reference (Le Droit) that counts for anything toward notability — but the fact that you can point to one news article about his selection as a candidate in a reliable source doesn't get him over the WP:NPOL bar, because that's just WP:ROUTINE coverage no different from what all candidates in all elections always get. And nominator is also correct that neither his age (even just among Quebec's current crop of federal MPs, let alone former ones, there are several who are younger than this) nor his linguistic background (anglo-Quebecers rare? *snort*) are nearly as "unique" as the prod-decliner claimed them to be (and even if they were unique, that still wouldn't make them reasons why he should qualify for an article just for being a candidate.) Delete, without prejudice against recreation if he wins the seat when the election occurs. Bearcat (talk) 05:45, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete per Bearcat. Deletion (or a redirect to an appropriate page about the election) is a common and appropriate outcome for a candidate for a federal legislature. --Enos733 (talk) 05:55, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Weak keep - while he is not automatically notable under NPOL, he isn't automatically non-notable either. It is a false assertions that he has to be notable under some other specific notability guideline to be notable.  A politician can fall NPOL and still meet the GNG.  Here, the GNG case is rather weak but at least two semi-biographical articles exist (refs 5 & 6).  Ideally, the page would be merged into on the election, but that isn't an option at the moment so I must side with keep over delete.  If it is decided notability is not sufficient, the page should redirect to Conservative Party of Canada candidates, 2015 Canadian federal election. Pinging  who accepted this at AfC for input. --ThaddeusB (talk) 19:48, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
 * There aren't two reliable sources here, because InfoO7 is a local community weekly that isn't widely distributed enough to count toward satisfying a notability rule — but even if we did accept it, it still takes more than two sources to satisfy GNG if a person hasn't cleanly passed a subject-specific inclusion rule. Bearcat (talk) 01:27, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
 * As ThaddeusB found a place to redirect the subject, I would accept that. --Enos733 (talk) 05:33, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
 * It is not uncommon for people to claim local/specialized sources don't convey notability, but the only consensus based guideline that has that language is the one on events. What really matter is if the source is reliable or not.  Unless you have some evidence that Info07 doesn't fact check, my assumption is that it is a reliable source and since there is no consensus that local, biographical sources do not convey notability, the subject technically meets the notability guidelines.  --ThaddeusB (talk) 16:01, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
 * If that's all it takes to have a biography page under GNG, then I could write a biography about myself: I've been in the local papers, and I ran in student council elections. I see no utility of this page, except (as Bearcat mentioned) as a self-promoting campaign brochure. If otherwise non-notable political candidates can have bios on Wikipedia, we may end up with thousands of these useless campaign brochures. A redirect to Conservative candidates page would be acceptable. FUNgus guy (talk) 02:58, 12 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Weak keep because the subject is notable enough. I can see that the subject does not fully meet the guideline mentioned. But that does not automatically mark him as "not notable". He is a running candidate for a famous party with political experiences before running for this election. William2001 (talk) 00:50, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Except that "running candidate for a famous party" is not a claim of notability that gets a person into an encyclopedia by itself, and his "political experiences" involve being a run-of-the-mill staffer in other politicians' offices (and, for that matter, not even telling us which politicians!), not an actual holder of any political office in his own right. Bearcat (talk) 01:27, 11 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Mild delete. Candidates not yet elected in such situations are not considered notable. A candidate named Dwayne Stovall made some headway and got some public attention in early press accounts when he ran against Senator John Cornyn of Texas in 2014. He was not allowed a Wikipedia article. As it turned out, Stovall ran a weak third in the Republican primary. This candidate was unopposed for the Conservative Party nomination; I don't know the likelihood of his victory. It would seem he does not now qualify, but correct me if I am missing something? Billy Hathorn (talk) 04:22, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete under our current guideline. I would be in favor of hanging it so all major party candidates in national elections are notable; rather than debate what elements of local coverage are or not sufficiently independent, it would be a more direct way to do it. But such is not the consensus.  DGG ( talk ) 07:35, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete Does not pass notability guidelines for politicians.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:04, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete, does not meet notability guidelines at this time. Can be re-introduced later, if and when he is elected or becomes notable under some other circumstances.   PK  T (alk)  18:20, 13 February 2015 (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.