Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Craig M. Scott


 * 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The result was nomination withdrawn due to sourcing improvements. Bearcat (talk) 03:11, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Craig M. Scott

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Per WP:POLITICIAN, unelected candidates are not notable just for being candidates, but must generally either win election to office, or have already been notable enough for other things that they could have had (or already had) an article before they ran for office. That said, he seems to have done enough work in the past that the possibility may exist that he meets another notability guideline (which is why I'm opting for AFD instead of prod), but that work is still referenced to coverage of his nomination, rather than to older references which demonstrate that he was garnering sufficient coverage to confer notability for it at the time it was happening. In fact, the only reference cited here that was published before January 9, 2012 is his faculty profile on the webpage of the institution he works for, which is a primary source and therefore cannot demonstrate notability. I'm more than willing to withdraw the nomination if someone can WP:HEY it up to a keepable standard — and, of course, he can certainly have an article if he wins the by-election — but this is still a delete in its current form. Bearcat (talk) 19:12, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Agree with Bearcat. Other than the fact that he is a law professor at UofT, he is not notable enough to warrant a page. If (and when) he wins the by-election, we can re-add him, but for now, the page should be relegated to someone's sandbox. Bkissin (talk) 20:25, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 00:38, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 00:38, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 00:38, 11 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep - passes Notability (academics). Vale of Glamorgan (talk) 02:55, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
 * In future, if you're going to assert that an article passes a notability guideline, kindly make note in your comment of the fact that you've added improved sources to the article; it's those improved sources that change things, not the assertion by itself. Bearcat (talk) 03:11, 11 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Nomination withdrawn due to sourcing improvements. Bearcat (talk) 03:11, 11 January 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.