Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/George Dance (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   delete. King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 09:20, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

George Dance (politician)

 * – ( 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) 22:58, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Articles for deletion/Log/2012 April 26.  Snotbot   t &bull; c &raquo;  23:16, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I suspect the article was created in COI by editor George Dance himself, now blocked for disruptive editing. Span (talk) 17:29, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 23:14, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 23:18, 27 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Actually, what "Spanglej" calls her suspicion is not true; which (if she were interested in that) she could have seen for herself by checking the article's history -- the article was created by C.J. Currie in 2005, five years before I began writing articles here. I also note that West Eddy states only one of the criteria given in WP:POLITICIAN for *inclusion*, and infers illogically (see Denying the antecedent) that its absence is a reason for *exclusion*.GD04 (talk) 20:23, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Ah. I correct that to 'an article heavily edited by George Dance himself, who is currently blocked and seems to be using a sock account to make sure his article is not now deleted'. My apologies. Span (talk) 20:44, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
 * At least that correction isn't obviously untrue, but only because it's nonsensical. First off, a "sock account" is meant to disguise one's identity; my identity isn't disguised, whereas "Spanglej's" is. Second, only administrators can decide to whether to delete articles or not. "Spanglej" is the one with administrator friends willing to ban/block other editors for her, and I'm sure they're as willing to delete articles for her; what I write isn't going to make a difference to that. GD04 (talk) 16:14, 29 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) 03:41, 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) 00:01, 3 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete Span (talk) 00:14, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete. We used to keep Leaders of all political parties, but this case is different.  He was "interim" leader twice; I am not sure if that ever passed WP:POLITICIAN.  Secondly, the consensus has been changing to be less inclusionist to more exclusionist, at least as politiicans are concerned.  Finally, WP:BLP and WP:RS trump everything; I see a lot of in-house media rather than well-known sources.  For these reasons, regretfully, the article must be deleted. I'd be open to changing my mind if someone can rescue this mess. Bearian (talk) 16:00, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
 * An interim leader is no different from a permanent leader for notability purposes; if the sources are there to properly support the article, then we simply don't care whether they were an interim leader or a membership-selected permanent one. Bearcat (talk) 16:54, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
 * O.K. Can someone add better sources? Bearian (talk) 17:08, 5 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete. I followed the links to the primary references and they are all articles from "Nolan Chart", a website modeled after "The Huffington Post" with content built from links to other content. However, on Nolan the "other content" is just from personal blogs and not from reliable published sources. Nolan Chart even boasts a FAQ about how to "get yourself published", which the author of the Dance article clearly did. Nolan obviously gets traffic primarily thru pushing ads and misdirecting searches. The Dance article itself is therefore merely a puff piece on a non-notable BLP who created his own source material. The photograph in the article is even from his own wife and not a known source. Deletion long overdue.   Ultracobalt   &#32;(talk) 21:39, 12 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.