Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Che Wilson (politician)


 * 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. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 13:57, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Che Wilson (politician)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Contested PROD; rationale was: "Probably fails WP:BIO (he's had some media coverage but I couldn't find anything in-depth) but certainly in the article's current state." A couple of refs have been added, but they represent routine reporting and nothing in-depth about the subject himself.  Schwede 66  17:22, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete a non-notable party functonarry.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:30, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:09, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:09, 21 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete. Being president of a political party can get a person into Wikipedia if they can be shown as the subject of enough reliable source coverage about them to clear WP:GNG for it — but it is not a role that automatically guarantees them an article just because they can be nominally verified as existing. But the sources here are all just blurbs and cursory verifications that he holds the role, not one of which supports the addition of even one word of content about Wilson beyond "is president of a political party, the end". No prejudice against recreation if and when somebody can do better than this — given that he was only just elected to the role five days ago, it may just be WP:TOOSOON for a person who possibly will eventually have enough coverage to justify an article. Bearcat (talk) 22:34, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your considered contribution, . I doubt that the Māori Party will make it back into Parliament; I'd expect them to go under to be honest (ok, that's WP:CRYSTAL). Hence, I don't think it's just a matter of TOOSOON, but I very much doubt he'll ever get there. Time will tell.  Schwede 66  23:02, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
 * It's hard to say, and I'm certainly no expert in New Zealand politics — but if there's one thing I've learned over the years, it's never say never. I've had to live under a mayor who looked unelectable just weeks before he won, and 330 million of my neighbours are currently living under a president who looked unelectable as late as a few hours before he won, and there was a point less than 10 years ago when the party that's currently governing my country looked much likelier to die off completely than to recover to the degree that they actually have. So I've reworded my comment to clarify that it's a possibility rather than a certainty, but I'm not prepared to say it's entirely impossible that the Maori Party could recover some presence in the NZ Parliament in the future. Bearcat (talk) 23:07, 22 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep - As we see from Radio New Zealand and NZ Herald coverage showing in the footnotes, passes GNG. In addition, I would like to opine that I favor keeping all articles about political parties, their leaders, and their youth sections, regardless of the size or ideology of the party in question. This is the sort of information that our readers have a reason to expect in a comprehensive encyclopedia. Carrite (talk) 14:30, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
 * What we see in the article from Radio New Zealand is a 66-word blurb that nominally verifies his election as party chair, but fails to be substantively about him for the purposes of helping him pass WP:GNG for it, and what we see from the NZ Herald is an article about the overall party convention that briefly namechecks Wilson's existence, but still fails to be substantively about him for the purposes of helping him pass GNG. Passing GNG is not just a matter of eyeballing the names of the sourcing providers — it is a matter of evaluating in detail whether the actual content of the source links is or isn't substantively about him. Bearcat (talk) 18:06, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Indeed, Bearcat. Which is why I said the following: "A couple of refs have been added, but they represent routine reporting and nothing in-depth about the subject himself."  Schwede 66  21:58, 27 February 2018 (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.