Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ed Vanwoudenberg


 * 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. I don't have access to the paywalled refs - however, there's no consensus here as to whether the subject has "received significant press coverage" or not. (non-admin closure) -- Trevj (talk) 13:25, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Ed Vanwoudenberg

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

Does not meet WP:POLITICIAN. Has never been elected, lead a party that has never held a seat. West Eddy (talk) 22:48, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions.  — Frankie (talk) 23:12, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions.  — Frankie (talk) 23:12, 27 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) 04:17, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment - Wikipedia notability is NOT (as stated in the comment directly above) based upon ..."a question of the quality of sources that are or aren't present in the article...". Rather, the actual notability guideline, per WP:NRVE is that topic notability is based upon the availability of sources, and not upon whether or not they're present in Wikipedia articles. AfD is not cleanup. Perhaps consider working on the article, instead of stating that if other's don't, then it should be redirected. Northamerica1000(talk) 13:37, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
 * It's not my job (or anyone else's) to go out of my way to work on any article that I don't choose of my own free will to work on, based on my familiarity with the topic and my knowledge of where to find valid and useful sources. But that certainly does not mean that I'm not even allowed to have an opinion when an article comes up for discussion that nobody's willing to take the time to improve. Bearcat (talk) 05:50, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Of course not; I understand your point and sorry if the presentation of the prose in my comment above reads as dry or judgmental (not the intention). I should have included in my comment above the point of the above !vote not conferring with WP:DEL-REASON, part of Wikipedia's Deletion policy. The article currently has one source, which doesn't make it an unsourced BLP. However, the source just mentions Ed Vanwoudenberg as the Christian Heritage Party's first leader. Importantly though, per WP:NRVE, topic notability is a matter of available sources, and not whether or not they're present in articles (which is distinctly contrary to your rationale above). See also WP:IMPERFECT, Wikipedia is a work in progress: perfection is not required. Northamerica1000(talk) 04:31, 16 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, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:04, 3 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 22:59, 4 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, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:27, 10 May 2012 (UTC)


 * weak Keep Very minor party, but national head. there is no " 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", There is a requirement that BLPs have a RS, which I interpret as a sufficiently RS to provide WP:V for at least some of the key claims WP:BLPPROD.  Such is present, and whether we think it sufficient for notability is a matter of our own judgment. The question of notability is whatever we decide here. Bearcat, provide some evidence for your statement please--I cannot find the phrase "sourced to the hilt" on any WP policy page, or anywhere in WP except your own repeated unsourced assertions at AfDs.
 * 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) 00:49, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Regarding what to the previous post is an "explicit" "fact", I cannot verify that WP:N has the word "substantial". The WP:N nutshell says that "notable topics" are "those that have gained sufficiently significant attention by the world at large and over a period of time...".  As per WP:GNG, "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material".
 * WP:Notability is a guideline, not a "policy".
 * The word "confer", when used in an AfD discussion, generally has the effect of taking attention away from the idea of notability, since the word means "bestow", and notability is not something that is bestowed. Unscintillating (talk) 00:10, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
 * The difference between "substantial" and "significant" isn't nearly as profound you think it is; the terms are synonymous, actually.
 * Guidelines are binding in the absence of a compelling reason to ignore or override them. In fact, Wikipedia specifically defines its guidelines as documentation of how policy is actually carried out in practice, which means they operate in tandem with policy and are not ignorable just because they're guidelines.
 * Notability is not an unconditional entitlement to keep an unsourced or poorly sourced piece of crap, either. It's a judgement on the quality of an article as written, not an inherent characteristic of the topic. Bearcat (talk) 05:44, 15 May 2012 (UTC)


 * no case has been made for deletion The concept of wp:notability exists independently of the existence of an article on Wikipedia or the content of any such article.  While I agree that it is impossible to prove non-notability, the process of inductive reasoning needs data points which create a pattern of evidence to support the hypothesis of non-notability.  Regarding the nomination logic, a reasonable argument that a topic fails WP:POLITICIAN means nothing if the topic passes WP:GNG, Wikipedia:notability doesn't care why a topic is notable&mdash;and the nomination does not attempt to explain whether or not the topic fails WP:GNG.  Nor is there guidance in the nomination as to whether or not there is WP:V reliable material that needs to be merged.  Just by reading the arguments here, there is a presumption that (1) we don't want to delete the redirect, (2) there are no content problems that would be a reason to delete the edit history, and (3) there is a target for the redirect.  Unscintillating (talk) 03:40, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't see any coverage that would indicate notability per WP:GNG. Does anyone else?West Eddy (talk) 05:22, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Proofs by assertion are not evidence. The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.  Unscintillating (talk) 06:09, 11 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment - Here's some sources from Google News: link. Northamerica1000(talk) 13:34, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep - More sources added to the article. They're paywalled. This topic appears to meet WP:GNG.
 * — Northamerica1000(talk) 08:44, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
 * — Northamerica1000(talk) 08:44, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
 * — Northamerica1000(talk) 08:44, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
 * — Northamerica1000(talk) 08:44, 16 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep per User:Northamerica1000. Me-123567-Me (talk) 13:22, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete / redirect as per WP:POLITICIAN -  PLUS Others like Heather Stilwell should all be redirected to Christian Heritage Party of Canada candidates, multiple elections or Christian Heritage Party of Canada. Moxy (talk) 14:53, 19 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.