Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Grant Neufeld (2nd nomination)


 * 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. If somebody wants to fix this BLP, I'll be glad to userfy or incubate it. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:41, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Grant Neufeld
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

Although this was kept when first discussed in 2005, the state of the article is such that it does need a review to look at whether it really conforms to Wikipedia's contemporary standards and policies as of 2012. Firstly, today's consensus has very much swung away from the idea that being the president of a political party at the provincial or state level automatically confers sufficient notability to entitle someone to an article just on that basis alone — and secondly, our rules around reliable sourcing are a lot tighter and stricter than they were seven years ago, such that there is not a single source in this article which passes 2012 standards: several are dead links, and the others are either invalid primary sources or mere listings of his name which fail to constitute substantive coverage of him. As always, I'm willing to withdraw this nomination if somebody can Heymann it up to a keepable standard with real, reliable sources — but as currently constituted, it does not meet contemporary notability and sourcing standards. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 22:37, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 22:42, 24 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete as is.  Bearcat is right.  Wikipedia has changed (me included).  We don't keep BLPs because they might one day be fixed.  We demand they be right now, not tomorrow.  I think if somebody wants to take a few hours, they can likely find sufficient reliable sources and completely rebuild this article, providing coverage from numerous sources (He regularly gets his name in the news from his activism, having plenty of interviews).  Thus meeting the general notability requirement.  But, those sources just aren't in the current article.  Right now, we just have primary non-neutral sources. Grant, if you're reading this, I hope you'll agree you're probably better off having this get deleted, since it probably does nothing but attract random idiots writing something stupid, that you or others have to forever be on the watch for.   --Rob (talk) 23:13, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 18:11, 26 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep - Has been up for deletion many times it seems and is still here. Passes WP:GNG.--BabbaQ (talk) 11:29, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
 * The core of WP:GNG is whether a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. That isn't demonstrated by this article; every single reference cited in it is insignificant, unreliable and/or not independent. It's certainly possible that Mr. Neufeld might meet WP:GNG in principle — but the article, in its current form, does not. And while it was repeatedly nominated in 2004 and 2005 (and sometimes even renominated within minutes of the previous discussion being closed), it hasn't been discussed once, or improved one whit, in the six years since. Wikipedia standards around notability and referencing are now much tighter and stricter than they were at that time; you could get away with a much lazier, much more poorly written and much more poorly referenced article back then than you can now. And you can't just assert that a topic passes WP:GNG, either — that has to be demonstrated by the actual use of actual reliable sources, and there aren't any here. As I said already, I'll happily withdraw this nomination if the article gets improved — but it's not entitled to stick around looking like this. Bearcat (talk) 17:41, 28 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete - Lacks the significant coverage needed for inclusion. There is this article in a Calgary weekly, but aside from that, it's just passing mentions. -- Whpq (talk) 17:09, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete Insufficient notability. The earlier AfD was marked by a remarkable number of poor arguments, and I'm surprised it took so long for this to be renominated.  DGG ( talk ) 23:32, 30 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete. Not seeing sufficient third-party sourcing and coverage to justify a self-standing BLP like this. --DAJF (talk) 04:53, 1 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.