Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Darrin Lamoureux


 * 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. Tone 20:48, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

Darrin Lamoureux

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

The article topic does not WP:NPOL. Apparently, articles about unelected politicians like Naveed Anwar, Darrin Lamoureux and Naomi Hunter should be deleted regardless of the status of the party of which they are leaders.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 19:00, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep. No policy/guideline based grounds cited for deletion. No effort to comply with WP:BEFORE wet the GNG. Saying you don't believe a subject should be notable is an argument carrying no weight. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006.  Fight for freedom, stand with Hong Kong! (talk) 19:11, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete, having now concluded a search for sources, I don't see any coverage other than ROUTINE announcements of his election (acclamation?) to the party position and his later resignation, plus one article that quotes him as a spokesperson for the party. Does not meet WP:GNG signed,Rosguill talk 19:15, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 19:42, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:00, 14 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete nothing beyond routine coverage, no actual show of notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:56, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete. We long ago deprecated the idea that every leader of a political party was automatically handed an "inherent" notability freebie just for existing, without regard to his sourceability or lack thereof. The standard is now that leaders of political parties who are not also actual MLAs need to clear WP:GNG on their sourcing, which is a significantly higher bar than just being able to verify that they exist — rather, the requirement is to demonstrate the significance of his leadership, not just the fact of it, and this article isn't doing what's needed. Bearcat (talk) 23:49, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep - former leader of a significant political party in Saskatchewan. Sowny (talk) 00:11, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
 * That "significant" political party has not had a seat in the Saskatchewan legislature since 2003. It received 3.59% of the vote in the last election and received no seats (under Lamoureux's leadership).  If the current leader of the Green Party of Saskatchewan is not notable, why would Lamoureux be?  Lamoureux does not meet WP:NPOL.  Do you have any evidence to support a claim he has met WP:GNG?--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 01:22, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Unlike the Greens, the Liberals were once the ruling party of Saskatchewan and were more recently part of a governing coalition. That makes them a legacy party, IMHO, unlike the Greens who have never won a seat, and therefore Liberal Party leaders are notable, while SK Green leaders are not. Sowny (talk) 03:01, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
 * One party has been in decline since the 1990s and the other is in an uptick across the country. The Sask Liberals have received a smaller and smaller share of the vote in every election since the 90s. They were wiped out in 2003 and have not held a seat since (17 years).  Naomi Hunter is the current leader who will be taking the party into an election in the coming months.  If she is not notable, I don't see how Lamoureux is.  What about those WP:RS showing Lamoureux has received significant coverage to warrant general notability?--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 03:36, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
 * If you believe Naomi Hunter is notable than create a new article on her with sufficient sources or go to Deletion_review to contest the deletion. Sowny (talk) 21:07, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
 * As I said, the difference is he was the leader of a legacy party and she is not. A better comparison would be with former BC Conservative leader Dan Brooks who has an article. If he merits an article so do Lamoureux and Anwar. Sowny (talk) 05:29, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Per WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, the fact that Dan Brooks has an article (which you may notice has also been flagged for notability questions since 2014) does not mean every leader of every political party gets to have one too — it means Dan Brooks' article should also be put up for deletion (and just guess what's now happened). Leading a "legacy" party is not a notability freebie that works differently than leading an "emerging" party does — either way, the person still has to clear WP:GNG on the back of enough reliable sourcing to write a substantive article about the significance of their leadership, and does not get an automatic inclusion freebie just because it's possible to nominally verify that they exist(ed) as a leader of a political party with no representation in the legislature during their leadership. Bearcat (talk) 15:42, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Conversely, Darryl's point, otherstuffdoesntexist - the fact that Hunter's bio was deleted doesn't in and of itself justify deleting another article. The point remains that the Liberal Party of Saskatchewan, unlike the Greens, is s legacy party that was in government relatively recently (as a minority coalition partner) and had previously been in government as a majority. As for GNG - they pass it because they are the leader of a legacy party, therefore they are notable. Sowny (talk) 17:30, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
 * What are you talking about? How were they RECENTLY part of a coalition government when they haven't had a seat in the legislature for 17 years?  Your idea of what constitutes "recently" seems to be quite different from mine.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 17:41, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
 * As I responded in the other place where you made basically the exact same comment, GNG is a measure of an article's sourcing, not of how important the topic's notability claim does or doesn't sound to you personally. There is absolutely nothing in GNG that states that leaders of "legacy" political parties are treated differently than leaders of "emerging" political parties when it comes to notability — either way, the question of whether the leader qualifies to have a standalone biographical article, separately from having their name mentioned in the party's article, lives or dies on the quality and depth of their sourcing, not on the question of whether the party is a "legacy" one or an "emerging" one. GNG measures the sources, not subjective opinions about the importance of a statement. Bearcat (talk) 17:00, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Notability states "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list." and that: ""Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material.". The article meets that standard of notability and in addition, the sources cites are both reliable and independent so as far as I can see, all three elements of the test have been passed. Sowny (talk) 21:01, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
 * GNG is not just automatically met by every article that happens to have sources in it — it is not simply a matter of counting the footnotes and keeping anything that happens to surpass two, but also tests sources for their depth, their geographic range and the context of what they're covering the person for. That is, a political party leader does not instantly pass GNG just because you can show a blip of "person wins leadership" on the day of the convention and another blip of "leader resigns" on the day of his resignation — to get a political party leader over GNG, you have to show ongoing coverage of his work in the leadership, substantively establishing the significance of his leadership (which is not the same thing as the mere fact of it per se) and spanning the years in between the leadership conventions. Bearcat (talk) 23:23, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks, but the sources in the article establish notability beyond the threshold established by the policy, as written, and that is what is required. I cannot see evidence of the added strictures you are imposing in the actual policy, as it is written. Sowny (talk) 00:01, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
 * As I've often pointed out in AFD discussions, if the existence of two sources were enough all by itself to hand people a GNG-based exemption from having to be notable for any specific reason that would pass any of Wikipedia's subject-specific inclusion criteria, then we would have to keep an article about my mother's neighbour who once got into the papers for finding a pig in her front yard — which is exactly why notability doesn't work that way, and does work exactly the way I said it does: it tests the footnotes for factors like their depth, their geographic range and the context in which they're covering the person, not just for whether n>2 or not, and not all possible sources are equal contributors toward the actual notability test. We require coverage which establishes the significance of his leadership, not just the technical fact of it per se. Bearcat (talk) 00:23, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   18:47, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete Fails WP:GNG and WP:NPOL. Just another generic regional party leader that has not won elected office. KidAd   talk  01:23, 29 September 2020 (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.