Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Johan Boyden


 * 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. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone  00:29, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Johan Boyden

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Per previous AfDs, merely running in an election does not mean notability. Being general secretary of the youth wing of a minor political party doesn't sway my opinion on that, nor does the fact that the only secondary sources available are wikinews and university papers. --fvw *  04:49, 15 January 2009 (UTC) 
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions.   -- • Gene93k (talk) 05:17, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions.   -- • Gene93k (talk) 05:17, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions.   -- • Gene93k (talk) 05:18, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Previous page was speedy deleted, this is a partial copy. The previous speedy means G4 doesn't yet apply. - Mgm|(talk) 09:33, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Not enough sources or achievements to meet notability or wp:POLITICIAN. --Omarcheeseboro (talk) 01:33, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 20 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep Article is well sourced and meets all notability guidelines. It appears that the nominator has made any attempt to discuss the problems with this page before adding the Article for Deletion tag. Per WP:PRESERVE ...Whatever you do, endeavour to preserve information. Instead of removing, try to...(suggestions) Notability states: "If an article fails to cite sufficient sources to demonstrate the notability of its subject, look for sources yourself." Deletion  "When in doubt, discuss first on the talk page...If the page can be improved, this should be solved through regular editing, rather than deletion" WP:INTROTODELETE Remember that deletion is a last resort. WP:POTENTIAL In most cases deletion of an article should be a last resort. If not kept, page should be userfied so new user can expand and make this article better, lets not WP:BITE this new editor.Ikip (talk) 04:03, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Note to closing administrator creator is a new user, who has made significant changes since the Article for deletion nomination. Since the creator has added significant information, would nominator agree to now close this AfD? Ikip (talk) 04:03, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
 * What's required of references is that they amount to substantial coverage of the topic, but except for an article in the Ryerson University Eyeopener almost all of the references here are either primary sources, such as an interview on Wikinews, or incidental coverage such as his name merely being mentioned on an election results table. That simply doesn't cut it in the notability sweepstakes — the only reference that actually constitutes coverage in a reliable source about the topic is that Eyeopener piece, and one single piece in a university newspaper doesn't fulfill the expectation of substantial coverage. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 05:34, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete agree completely with Bearcat. Some of the references don't even support the material. For example this source used to support the fact that "he represented students on the UNBC Board of Governors and was known for his 'lefty' views" simply mentions in derisive fashion that "Boyden presented a whole lot of drivel about historic dates and facts to show Santa really emerged in the 1700s as Saint Nicholas and later came into his own as a "corporate Claus" promoted by Coca Cola." If taking part in a student debate makes one notable then I hope Wikipedia has a very big server. While this one, used to support the fact that often he was "obtaining the largest number of the so-called 'protest votes' in the riding" doesn't say that at all, it mentions him in passing saying that "Even the Communist Party's Johan Boyden was more popular, securing 120 votes."


 * 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.