Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dennis Young (Canadian 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   redirect to Libertarian Party of Canada, any content worth merging may be pulled from the page history. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:14, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Dennis Young (Canadian politician)

 * – ( View AfD View log )


 * Does not meet WP:POLITICIAN or WP:GNG as a necessary article. Little to no sourcing in the article and it lacks any real detail. Aaaccc (talk), 27 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete for the poor sourcing. However, I don't think it fails POLITICIAN, his party nominated 26 people in 2008, leader's of parties with less have articles. 117Avenue (talk) 07:27, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete: Fails WP:POLITICIAN - what criterion of it does anyone propose he meets? - and apparently the GNG as well. Indeed, there are articles on the leaders of parties with less of the federal vote than Young's; that seems to me to be a good start for further AfDs, in the cases where they have no notability beyond that of their parties.   Ravenswing  09:40, 28 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Weak delete - we may want to consider expanding the guidelines to include such cases, but not now. Bearian (talk) 15:44, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:25, 29 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Wait - See if more sources arise and if he plays a significant role, etc... Inclusionism FTW. Enough of this knee-jerk deletion request crap. You guys are like vultures, circling overhead and waiting for an article to arise that might not have a place here.--Metallurgist (talk) 04:55, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment: If you don't believe that any article should be deleted from Wikipedia, there are venues where you can argue your case and try to get that changed ... and given that tens of thousands of editors all the way up to Jimbo believe otherwise, your work's cut out for you. In any event, AfD is not one of those venues.  Certainly pertaining to this article, WP:CRYSTAL - which is one of those core policies supporting deletion policy that you haven't yet managed to overthrow - of course precludes your premise that, well, maybe, just perhaps, someday this fellow may do something that the world notices.  In the meantime, some good faith, please.  This article's been hanging fire for nearly a year now and hasn't been substantively improved since its creation; this isn't one of those four-minute-after-creation AfDs, and it's uncivil to imply otherwise.    Ravenswing  07:05, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I didnt say EVERY article should be kept. Thats not what inclusionism is (for most). Its that articles be given the benefit of the doubt unless they are clearly blatantly unnotable. I just find it obnoxious that people frequently seem to jump on articles like vultures or jackals and insist it be deleted. I didnt say "someday" he may do something, altho I can see how that could be drawn out of my text. I was just saying that there could be sources out there. I didnt want to do this, but since no one else seems interested in defending this article, I will look for possible sources.--Metallurgist (talk) 17:05, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I searched a bit and found one more source from the Calgary Herald. It doesnt say much, but it is a source. At this point I would lean a little more towards deletion. However, an election is upon us. I think this should be delayed until after the election to see if he becomes more notable. On the other hand, a number of other minor party leaders with 2-3 sources also have articles with no deletion proposals.--Metallurgist (talk) 17:25, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
 * You're still hanging up on WP:CRYSTAL. We cannot keep an article on the premise that the subject might become notable.  Obviously, should events unfold so as to confer notability on the subject, an article can be created at that time.  As far as other articles go, that's an WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument, but if it'll make you feel better, I'll go file AfDs on the other fringe party leaders who don't qualify.   Ravenswing  20:59, 31 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep As a leader of a registered party during an election it would be bad form to delete this entry. Being leader of a registered party is worthy enough to make someone notable, if the "guidelines" disagree, then they are flawed, and need changing, now, not later. Nickjbor (talk) 03:36, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment: In which case, as above, feel free to go over to the WP:POLITICIAN talk page and advocate your position. In the meantime, the guidelines are what the guidelines say, and Young neither meets WP:POLITICIAN nor the GNG.   Ravenswing  09:46, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 00:37, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Keep as leader of the Libertarian Party of Canada. Carrite (talk) 04:08, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete - WP:GNG requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject", that does not exist, therefore this should be deleted, being the leader of a party in an election is no reason to make an exception, consider pointing the page to Libertarian Party of Canada after it is deleted. Mtking (talk) 06:02, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment - Party leaders are likely to be public figures. Here's the REPORT OF HIS SELECTION in the Canadian Libertarian WesternStandard.ca, so there is no fundamental issue of verifiability of his position. Here's A STORY ON YOUNG from the Calgary Herald, the biggest newspaper in the major Canadian city of Calgary, Alberta... There are over 58,000 Google hits for the specific name "Dennis Young" + the word "Libertarian." Fairly clearly a notable public figure as the Libertarians' choice for Prime Minister of Canada. Carrite (talk) 16:30, 3 April 2011 (UTC)


 * For what it's worth, our inclusion practices do include allowing for the leader of a duly registered political party, regardless of whether it's big or small or has 308 candidates or two, to be considered notable — but the precedent is spelled out at WP:OUTCOMES ("politicians" section) and hasn't actually been integrated into WP:POLITICIAN yet. However, they do also permit us to redirect the leader's name to the party's article if we can't adequately source an independent article about the leader himself. Accordingly, keep if decent sources pan out by close, and redirect to Libertarian Party of Canada if they don't. Bearcat (talk) 07:43, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Interesting find, Bearcat. In that case, I would go along with merger, and fixing the discrepency. Bearian (talk) 16:54, 5 April 2011 (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.