Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fred DeLorey


 * 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 delete. Black Kite (talk) 22:46, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Fred DeLorey

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Being a political candidate does not meet WP:NPOL. Neither does being a PMO staffer. FUNgus guy (talk) 00:47, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 02:08, 11 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete no significant coverage, barely verifies. Fails WP:NPOL, fails WP:BLPNOTE. Sources like Key players in the 2011 Conservative war room, a picture, and the two lines Candidate support and information for debates or interviews. DeLorey is the party's chief spokesman., doesn't support much. --Bejnar (talk) 19:57, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete - as per nom and above editor. Nothing on searches to show they meet WP:GNG, and they definitely don't meet WP:NPOL.  Onel 5969  TT me 13:26, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Unelected candidates for office don't qualify for Wikipedia articles just for being candidates — if you cannot credibly demonstrate and properly source that he was already eligible for a Wikipedia article for some other reason before he became a candidate, then he does not become notable enough for a Wikipedia article until he wins the seat. But this doesn't adequately demonstrate that he would already have been eligible for a Wikipedia article — essentially, it's a campaign brochure. That said, at this point the discussion will hit eligibility for closure on October 18 — but election day is the very next day, and as a Conservative running in a traditionally Conservative seat he is a strong contender to win. Accordingly, at this point I'd request that closure be deferred the additional day pending the election results, or if that isn't an option then the article be sandboxed in draft space so that a revised version can be moved back into place again if he actually does win. I'll revise this to a delete vote if he loses, obviously, and it would have been a more straightforward "delete as campaign brochure and then recreate if he wins" if there had been a longer lead time — but with just a 24 hour gap between closure and potential recreation, we may as well just wait out the extra day. Bearcat (talk) 16:41, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 16:55, 17 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Agree, defer the deletion until after the election, notability status may change. FUNgus guy (talk) 22:17, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
 * WP:Userfication is fine, deferring not really. See WP:TOOSOON. The article still needs citation to multiple reliable sources.  Having articles just becauyse they're candidates is a slippery slope, and WP:CRYSTALBALL. --Bejnar (talk) 14:32, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Deferring closure for one or two more days past Day 7 is a thing that AFD does have the latitude to do in certain circumstances — and "the article has a high probability of having to be recreated again the very next day" is exactly the kind of circumstance where we have that latitude. And deferring it for one more day wouldn't even put it outside the normal range of AFD process, because it's fairly common for a discussion to linger into Day 8, 9 or 10 just because nobody even gets around to closing it until then. I'm not suggesting that he should get an extended deferral just for being a candidate — I'm pretty well known around here as one of the editors who's most actively involved in quashing that argument when it rears its head, and I explicitly said that (a) I would have said delete at literally any other time during the course of the campaign, and (b) I'll come back to support a delete if he isn't declared the winner tomorrow night — but given that the timing involved here means that the article might have to be recreated again literally tomorrow, it's not unreasonable to just hold off closure for one more day. Especially when even the nominator agreed with me. Bearcat (talk) 15:56, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
 * The problem is not whether he'll be elected today. (Polls suggest he won't.) The problem is coverage and citation to multiple reliable sources in the article.  Yes, MPs are traditionally notable under WP:NPOL, but as WP:N says No subject is automatically or inherently notable merely because it exists: The evidence must show the topic has gained significant independent coverage or recognition. It may take sometime for that coverage to develop. --Bejnar (talk) 00:59, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
 * And for an elected MP, the article is automatically allowed to exist the moment their election has been declared by one reliable source. Once that declaration has been made, deletion is immediately off the table forever unless the result gets overturned on an automatic or judicial recount before he ever actually gets sworn into office, and whatever further time it takes for an extended volume of RS coverage to unfold is allowed to do that unfolding with the article already in place waiting for it. Being elected to the House of Commons is not a "merely because he exists" thing — it's a claim of notability that inherently lifts a person above "politician who exists", and directly into "politician who must have an article on Wikipedia regardless of how inadequate that article might be in the first few days, because the fact of being elected to the House of Commons has made him notable for more than just existing". And like I said, if he doesn't win I'll be the first to come back and revise my call to a delete instead (between my cheers of joy, because Central Nova is one of those "if the Conservatives lose that one they're burnt" ridings) — but it's worth being aware that the datestamp on that polling article is September 23, and a lot can change in a month. Bearcat (talk) 01:42, 19 October 2015 (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.