Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jaime Battiste


 * 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. Despite claims of this meeting GNG, as the deletes have noted no actual evidence has been provided that it actually meets GNG. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 07:42, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

Jaime Battiste

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This person is listed as a political candidate and has not been elected to a major legislature. Being a candidate alone is not notable enough to satisfy WP:POLITICIAN and his work as an academic is not enough to satisfy WP:NACADEMIC Rockandrollradio (talk) 14:25, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. AmericanAir88(talk)  16:39, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. AmericanAir88(talk)  16:39, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. AmericanAir88(talk)  16:41, 13 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep Though the article needs a fair bit of work and cleanup, it does seem to suggest a BLP at least over the WP:GNG bar for his work on indigenous law. The political candidacy seems irrelevant here. Simonm223 (talk) 18:06, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
 * <small class="delsort-notice">Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Enos733 (talk) 20:43, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

<div class="xfd_relist" style="border-top: 1px solid #AAA; border-bottom: 1px solid #AAA; padding: 0px 25px;"> Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete. Just to be clear, this article has existed since 2015, but he only became a political candidate for the first time in 2019 and the article doesn't even actually mention that fact at all yet, so the upcoming federal election really doesn't have anything to do with why this exists. That said, I'm still not convinced that it adequately demonstrates his notability on the grounds that it was actually going for — none of his career accomplishments are "inherent" notability clinchers that would automatically guarantee him an article just because he exists, but this is referenced entirely to a mix of primary sources that aren't support for notability at all and glancing namechecks of his existence in coverage of other things or people, not to any strong evidence that he has been the subject of enough reliable source coverage to clear WP:GNG. And on both Google and ProQuest searches, I'm just finding more of the same, and not finding sources that actually bolster his notability by being substantively about him. Obviously no prejudice against recreation after October 20 if he wins the seat, but nothing here is enough to already make him eligible for an article today — and even if the election candidacy were added to the article, that wouldn't change anything since candidates don't get articles just for being candidates either. Bearcat (talk) 19:39, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So said The Great Wiki Lord. (talk) 16:07, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep would appear to pass WP:GNG without getting into the whole political candidate thing. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 07:14, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Based on what, exactly? There are no reliable sources here which are covering him as a subject at all — every single reliable source in the article is just a glancing namecheck of his existence in an article about somebody or something else, while right across the board all of the sources which are about him are primary sources which are never support for notability at all. Bearcat (talk) 04:09, 26 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete. The article is full of deadlinks, but except for the 2004 award as an "aspiring attorney" they seem to be about other things and lacking in in-depth coverage of the subject. There is recent in-depth coverage, but it's all about his candidacy and so fails WP:NPOL. No prejudice against re-creation if he wins election. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:17, 27 August 2019 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <b style="color:red">Please do not modify it.</b> 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.