Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Charles Cavilla


 * 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   no consensus. Perhaps a discussion on the talk page (a redlink as I write) on the possibility of merging this into the party's article could be held. While it may not be desireable to have a "permastub" BLP, there is no consensus to delete this article. Xymmax So let it be written   So let it be done  16:38, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Charles Cavilla

 * – ( 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) 22:47, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions.  — Frankie (talk) 23:09, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions.  — Frankie (talk) 23:09, 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) 04:18, 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) 00:06, 3 May 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) 01:27, 10 May 2012 (UTC)




 * weak Keep Very 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 current AfDs.    DGG ( talk ) 01:49, 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) 00:51, 12 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep - I believe it to be in Wikipedia's best interest to include articles about political parties, their youth sections, and their leaders without regard to size or ideology. This is the sort of information which should be in encyclopedias. Carrite (talk) 18:29, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete coverage simply isn't there so the subject fails both WP:GNG and WP:POLITICIAN. Arguments along the lines of "I reckon this should be in Wikipedia" have no basis in policy and are specifically discouraged per WP:ILIKEIT. Valenciano (talk) 13:13, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep - Notable as a former leader of the Christian Heritage Party of Canada. Per WP:FIXTHEPROBLEM, find sources and improve the article. Northamerica1000(talk) 13:48, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
 * That's fine as long as it actually happens. The problem with such rationales is that it often doesn't, with the result that we end up keeping articles that still stay looking like this — which is why there needs to be a hard deadline beyond which they get redirected to the party if the necessary improvement doesn't actually show up pronto. Bearcat (talk) 04:06, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment - Please read WP:NRVE, which delineates that topic notability is not based upon whether or not sources are in articles, it's based upon the availability of sources. See also: WP:IMPERFECT, Wikipdia is a work in progress: perfection is not required. Northamerica1000(talk) 09:25, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
 * There has to be an actual hard deadline beyond which an article gets canned if nobody's willing to actually take the time to actually improve it, because otherwise there's no impetus for anyone to actually do the necessary work. This article is now seven years old and it's still really, really bad — and it's never going to get any better if we don't light a fire under people's butts. Bearcat (talk) 18:14, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment - There's no policy or guideline about Wikipedia content as stated above whatsoever. See also WP:NOTCOMPULSORY, where it's stated (in part), "Wikipedia is a volunteer community, and does not require the Wikipedians to give any more time and effort than they wish. Focus on improving the encyclopedia itself, rather than demanding more from other Wikipedians." Northamerica1000(talk) 06:54, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I didn't say that was policy speaking — I said that's how we need to actually treat these matters if we value the idea of Wikipedia ever actually being a good source of comprehensive content about the topics we write about, which is a very different thing. There's no real value in keeping an article on the basis that it can be improved, if it never actually does get improved. Bearcat (talk) 18:35, 19 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep per . Me-123567-Me (talk) 21:13, 14 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.