Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Daniel Sweeney


 * 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. Eluchil404 (talk) 08:39, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Daniel Sweeney

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

Article about a minor Canadian political figure (directors of individual riding associations in individual electoral districts don't normally clear the bar), but who happened to score a single burst of WP:BLP1E coverage in 2010. Except for cursory mentions in two news articles from May of that year, every single reference cited here was published between September 25 and September 29, 2010 — and the majority of those, further, are the same article as published by several different Postmedia newspapers on the same day. Even if this were somehow to be kept, it's extremely poorly written and would require a major cleanup job — but more realistically, I just don't see a particularly compelling case for actual notability here. Google doesn't offer any viable new sources about him anywhere outside of that same four-day window in September 2010, and as far as I can tell this article is mostly just asserting that he's notable as a marginal player who happened to get mentioned in a news story that wasn't actually about him in any genuinely meaningful way. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 05:07, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 05:49, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. 19:44, 19 August 2012 (UTC)  • Gene93k (talk) 19:44, 19 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete. Fails WP:POLITICIAN and WP:BLP1E. Location (talk) 03:24, 20 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete - As dreadful as saying "per nom" is, I can't add anything to teh reasoning outlined in the nomination. -- Whpq (talk) 18:50, 21 August 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.