Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/George Hastings (Manitoba 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   incubate. There appears to be pretty solid consensus that this does not meet WP:N with the current state of sourcing, but there is promise that better sources may emerge. So, moving this to Draft:George Hastings (Manitoba politician) where it can be worked on, and possibly brought back to main article space if better sourcing emerges. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:48, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

George Hastings (Manitoba politician)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Minimally sourced biography of a person notable only as an unsuccessful candidate for the leadership of a political party, and then trying to undermine the leadership of the person who beat him. No substantive evidence that he passes WP:POLITICIAN, and not enough sourcing to invoke the WP:GNG loophole. Delete (or incubate per Serialjoepsycho in case salvageability is possible with some active research effort?) Bearcat (talk) 22:56, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 22:56, 24 June 2014 (UTC)


 * CommentYou didn't really give to good of a summary. He started to undermine the leadership of a person then ran against him. A war time Coalition Government was formed for the province in 1940. This of course was during World War 2 which ended in 1945. After the war ended the coalition continued. In 1949 he and another individual founded the Manitoba Democratic Movement with the stated purpose of ending the coalition. They successfully accomplished this in mid 1950. In October, after all that happened he ran against Willis. Not befor. Creating an organization that ends a decade of politics certainly seems notable.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 00:26, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
 * That's not a claim that gets a person past WP:POLITICIAN, no — and more importantly it isn't very well sourced, containing only one insufficiently vague citation which only supports the fact that he served as leader of a local riding association after the whole thing which you're claiming makes him notable was over (leaders of local riding associations are not notable), one external link to a historical essay in a middling source that isn't enough to confer notability if it's the only substantive source that can be cited (it would be valid for additional verification of facts after his notability had been covered off by better sourcing, but cannot confer notability by itself), and one external link to his obituary (which is not a source that confers notability at all). Even if anything here did actually pass a notability guideline, it's not the mere assertion of significance that gets a person past our notability rules — it's the quality of reliable sourcing that can be cited to support the assertion, and the quality of the sourcing here is for bird droppings. Bearcat (talk) 15:35, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
 * The current sourcing is not reason for deletion. I didn't make the claim that he met wp:politician. I suggested he may have met the primary criterion of notability. I'm not sure. There aren't enough sources on the page to be sure. All I can note is my perception that you have made no effort towards verification. Serialjoepsycho (talk) 00:16, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
 * The primary criterion of notability (a/k/a WP:GNG) requires sourcing too. And your perception that I "have made no effort towards verification" is simply wrong. Bearcat (talk) 17:44, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Manitoba-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:45, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:45, 25 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment - As secretary of the Manitoba Democratic Movement and a political figure of the 1950s (i.e. a historical figure rather than a contemporary politician), I hope that GNG is observed rather than the Special Notability high bar that we have for politicians in order to stop self-serving blather and campaign spam. That said, I'm not seeing a lot in a cursory Google search. Carrite (talk) 15:19, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
 * GNG still requires sourcing. Bearcat (talk) 17:44, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Most of what I could find was behind a pay wall. I'd check the archives of the specific news paper sourced in the article. Probaly also the Manitoba Historical society.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 17:33, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
 * The Manitoba Historical Society is not a source that can adequately confer notability on a person. It's acceptable for additional verification of facts after enough other sourcing has been added to get a person past GNG, but it can't itself get a person past GNG if it is the article's principal or sole source. Bearcat (talk) 17:44, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Manitoba History: The Journal of the Manitoba Historical Society would certainly meet that criteria. The Winnipeg free press would as well. But then I was actually suggesting searching MHS for other resources. You may be able to contact them and they could direct you to the apropriate sources. You might also consider the Archives of Manitoba. Googling for a few seconds doesn't seem to me to be a thorough attempt verification. The current content as written does suggest notability. However yes verification is required. I do feel though that it would be important to make a thorough attempt at verification. With that I can not suggest deletion. What I would propose is that we put this article under Incubation per WP:ATD-I. That will give it a chance to be improved and verified. And then after a time if that does not happen it can then be deleted.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 19:06, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, I could accept that as an alternative too. Bearcat (talk) 19:08, 27 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 20:47, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

 
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jenks24 (talk) 14:24, 12 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete. I was to close this as no consensus but I wanted to check on the feet dragging. I seemingly found no hits in LEXISNEXIS, ProQuest, and Google Books. I'm going with non-notable right now, though I'd be willing to entertain those paywall links from if they can be posted. Until then, I'm inclined to think the sourcing isn't robust enough to support an article. Please ping me if more sources (esp. non-English or offline) are posted. czar  ♔   15:04, 19 July 2014 (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.