Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dennis Heeney


 * 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. leaning keep. The policy that Bearcat referenced to is WP:V, not WP:BLP. Specifically, "It must be possible to attribute all information in Wikipedia to reliable, published sources." Significant leeway is given for non-controversial information but it is not exempted from WP:V; only systematically overlooked. Others correctly point out that the subject is now dead and no longer qualifies under WP:BLP. If I were part of this debate and if there was negative information to be concerned about, I'd argue that the article can still cause real world harm to his family and that is covered under the spirit of BLP. However, weak sourcing considered, there is certainly no consensus to delete and if this debate were to continue then I'd think we might end up with a consensus to keep. v/r - TP 19:26, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Dennis Heeney

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

Not notable per WP:POLITICIAN. West Eddy (talk) 02:27, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Articles for deletion/Log/2012 April 27.  Snotbot   t &bull; c &raquo;  02:50, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions.  — Frankie (talk) 17:32, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions.  — Frankie (talk) 17:32, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Manitoba-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 20:34, 28 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) 03:38, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Could you provide a link to a WP policy document that supports your interpretation? WP:BLP says that all controversial material must be sourced, but there is nothing to prevent a short article on a notable person with basic, uncontroversial information from limited sources. --Colapeninsula (talk) 14:30, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
 * The article only cites one source, and everything that's actually cited to that source cites one single page in a book that clearly has at least 200 of them — strongly suggesting that the source only mentions him briefly in passing, and isn't about him in any meaningful, significant way. A core requirement of our basic notability rule is that the person has been the subject of significant coverage, and it's not sufficient to merely point to a single source which verifies his existence. It's also a core policy of Wikipedia that all of our policies are read in tandem, not pitted against each other in a rules war — if an article doesn't meet WP:RS or WP:N, then the fact that its content doesn't explicitly violate WP:BLP with controversial or POV content does not override the lack of proper sourcing. A newly created BLP that was as poorly sourced as this one is could be WP:PRODded on the spot, in fact, and wouldn't even need to come to AFD for seven days of discussion. Bearcat (talk) 17:17, 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) 00:03, 4 May 2012 (UTC)




 * Keep The past consensus to keep the leaders of all political parties remains. There have been some aberrant decisions. On the other hand, there is no requirement that BLPs be "sourced to the hilt", they merely have to be sourced enough to show notability, whether via the GNG or other rule or our own judgment. There are only one special rule for BLP sourcing: that truly RSs be used for contentious negative material. That's a very good rule, but it isn't applicable here.  DGG ( talk ) 04:35, 6 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) 00:57, 12 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, -Scottywong | soliloquize _ 18:50, 14 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep There seem to be several sources out there. BLP is irrelevant because the subject is dead. Warden (talk) 05:51, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete the only coverage out there seems to be brief mentions in passing, for example in relation to this controversy already mentioned in the article. Otherwise he was the leader of a micro party which completely failed to win any seats. I'm not sure where this past consensus to keep all political party leaders was but it's not one I agree with and it's not in WP:POLITICIAN so has no standing in policy. Valenciano (talk) 09:46, 16 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete The source doesn't show sufficient notability for a keep. The "consensus to keep all political party leaders" seems to appear at all these type of discussions. We can, instead, take a measured look at any specific article and make a decision based on sources, circumstances (micro party leader), etc. Stormbay (talk) 04:12, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Merge and redirect to Manitoba Confederation of Regions Party unless significant new sources can be found. Stuartyeates (talk) 22:14, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep her DGG. Sufficiently notable politician, not a BLP.--Milowent • hasspoken  13:27, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
 * btw, anyone with an account at newspaperarchive.com, please pull some of the sources there. the winnipeg papers have poor free online archives.--Milowent • hasspoken  13:33, 24 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.