Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ern Condon


 * 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 Labrador Party. Consensus to not keep. Undecided between delete and redirect, but I don't see arguments against a redirect for what is a possible search term.  Sandstein  14:59, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Ern Condon

 * – ( View AfD View log )


 * Does not meet WP:POLITICIAN. Has never been elected, lead a party that has never held a seat.--User19004 (talk) 00:15, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions.  Kpg  jhp  jm  02:53, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions.  Kpg  jhp  jm  02:53, 9 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete. To be fair, this was created in 2004, a time when we did extend an automatic "inherently notable" freebie to all leaders of political parties regardless of their degree of electoral success or failure — but our notability standards for politicians have been tightened up considerably in the intervening 16 years, and this is not an article-clinching notability claim anymore if the person cannot be shown to get over WP:GNG on the quality of his sources. But literally the only source here is a raw table of election results, which is not a notability-making source. Bearcat (talk) 12:10, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Labrador Party. He doesn’t pass NPOL and I see no evidence he passes GNG, but the party he founded is a good redirect target. Devonian Wombat (talk) 11:54, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Labrador Party as a plausible search term as the founder of a notable political party. --Enos733 (talk) 15:00, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete a non-notable politician. Some things I have read suggest Wikipedia really did not have any notability guidelines at all until 2006, although that may have only been speaking about some subjects. They were nothing like what we have today until at least 2010, and by then the wild west nature had sown so many clearly non-notable subject articles that we have never fixed these problems. Just consider how long we had an article on Barahir, with no sources at all. I believe it was 16 years.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:20, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep I can't find much media coverage in Google, or since 2006, but digging deeper back in time, there's coverage of him from 1980 to 2006 - I'm finding 159 hits alone in ProQuest, some of which look significant. The shear volume over such an extended period of time is unusual. I've added some references to the article. Nfitz (talk) 05:12, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete Non-notable perennial candidate. KidAd (talk) 06:09, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment - Please note nominator has been blocked for sockpuppetry and has done little but AFD articles since they created their account - all of which that I've carefully checked seem to be notable. How User:KidAd looking at the articles I added, isn't the subject notable? Nfitz (talk) 21:12, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I’m not sure what you mean. I’ve just been going through the AfD log from this past week. KidAd (talk) 17:14, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I added 6 references to the article - and you are the only person to comment since I've done so. The view of the nominator doesn't count given they are a blocked sockpuppet. JPL has no ability to discern notability - as noted in in topic ban for creating AFDs. And the only other delete says there's only one reference - a table of results ... which is no longer true. So this delete is pretty much on you. What's wrong with the 6 references I added? Nfitz (talk) 18:11, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
 * The delete is on me? Please remember WP:AGF. I haven't scoured every source you've added but I don't plan on retracting my vote. KidAd (talk) 21:15, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
 * How is pointing out that you, User:KidAd are the only delete after I added lots of references not AGF? And how have you "voted" without examining every source I added? I had AGF that you'd done what is required WP:BEFORE "voting". Nfitz (talk) 21:25, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
 * When would you prefer I vote? Is there a specific time of day that would be more convenient for you? Seeing as this guy is a non-notable perennial candidate who has never won an election, even the sources you've added (which only mention his name in passing as a candidate) are irrelevant to me. So please stop the meltdown and move on. KidAd (talk) 21:42, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure your point - why would I care when you "vote"? Perhaps you've missed the target of my pointed comment - please see WP:NOTAVOTE? How would this ever be a delete, and not a redirect to Labrador Party? And why play along with a banned sockpuppet? The article has been here for the best part of two decades, but now we co-operate with sockpuppets? Nfitz (talk) 00:11, 16 June 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.