Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Douglas Edmondson


 * 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 Manitoba Confederation of Regions Party per WP:NSUPER and because the article is a poorly sourced BLP. Consider this a no consensus close. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:14, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Douglas Edmondson

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

Not notable per WP:POLITICIAN. West Eddy (talk) 02:25, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions.  — Frankie (talk) 17:27, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions.  — Frankie (talk) 17:27, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Manitoba-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 20:31, 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) 03:39, 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) 00:04, 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 ) 04:34, 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 | confabulate _ 18:48, 14 May 2012 (UTC)




 * Delete The subject appears to lack substantial coverage in independent sources. The BLP policy would seem to be the guideline in this case. The consensus statements such as "keep all leaders of political parties" and "all high schools are notable" are guidelines that should be examined in the light of specific articles. Stormbay (talk) 03:38, 17 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Merge and redriect to Manitoba Confederation of Regions Party unless significant sources can be found. Stuartyeates (talk) 22:15, 21 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.