Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jordan Wilkie


 * 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 redirect to Green Party of Alberta. Vanamonde (Talk) 20:14, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Jordan Wilkie

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Non-notable, fails WP:POLITICIAN and WP:GNG. Poorly sourced, two of the sources are from his party's website and the third is from a blog. Leads a minor party that has never won a seat in the Alberta legislature and has never received more than 0.5% of the vote in a general election. Sowny (talk) 02:10, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Green_Party_of_Alberta per WP:CHEAP. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 02:20, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 04:47, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 04:47, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the Deletion alerts! at WikiProject Green Politics.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 04:53, 19 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep as he is the leader of a provincial political party in Alberta. Me-123567-Me (talk) 18:12, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete, without prejudice against the recreation of a redirect to the party afterward (but delete first because there's no need to retain the edit history). Being leader of a provincial political party without representation in the provincial legislature is not an inherent notability freebie that guarantees an article — it can get a person through the door if they can be properly sourced over WP:GNG, but does not confer an entitlement to have a Wikipedia article without regard to their sourceability or lack thereof. But of the three footnotes here, two are the party's own self-published content about itself and the third is from a blog, which means that exactly zero of them are reliable or notability-supporting sources. Bearcat (talk) 16:53, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep - I am not sure this articles' topic has obtained WP:GNG, but I will say our hypocrisy in these discussions is deafening. It is clear that there is one set of rules for Green leaders and another for Liberal and NDP leaders (who also lack representation in a provincial legislature).  If those articles are a Keep, removing this one is simple hypocrisy.  For examples, see Articles for deletion/Naveed Anwar, Articles for deletion/Mackenzie Thomason, Articles for deletion/Darrin Lamoureux and Articles for deletion/Naomi Hunter.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 18:33, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
 * It's not a question of political party affiliation per se — regardless of what political party a person is or isn't leader of, their notability on that basis always comes down to whether they're the subject of enough reliable source coverage in media to clear WP:GNG or not. A person who does have sufficient sources can be notable despite their party's lack of electoral success, while a person who doesn't have sufficient sources cannot. You certainly have a right to question whether the media are being fair in their coverage of minor political parties or not, and to believe that they're favouring some parties more than others — but that has nothing to do with any hypocrisy on our parts, because it's not our job to decide that some people are exempted from having to have legitimate sources just because some editors think they might deserve more coverage than they actually have. Our job is to follow the media, not to be the media. Bearcat (talk) 21:13, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Sure, but in some cases one or two (or a few) WP:RS are deemed "significant coverage", and in others they are not. Either, based on claims the coverage is WP:ROUTINE or "interviews" etc.  Those decisions seem to vary significantly based on party affiliation.  Coverage of Green politicians tends to be regularly dismissed as "coverage of a losing campaign" (some idiot campaigning on a bike, or driving a bio-fuel vehicle etc), while coverage of similarly unsuccessful campaigns by Liberals or NDP leaders are suddenly "in depth" and amounting to "significant coverage".  I am sorry, but I do not see these as decisions made divorced from editors own biases.  Coverage alone does not explain the deletion of Naomi Hunter if Naveed Anwar, Mackenzie Thomason or Darrin Lamoureux.  There was just as much (in some cases more) coverage of her.  But that coverage was dismissed, with similar coverage of these Liberal and NDP politicians trumpeted as "significant".--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 21:39, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Redirect to Green Party of Alberta: There are not sources that support a stand alone article. If someone can come up with sources, I'll gladly change my vote to Keep. They can make it with BASIC ("If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability") but the sources need to have something more than mentions.   // Timothy ::  talk  06:47, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   11:12, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Redirect as suggested, with a merger of sources if needed. Bearian (talk) 00:03, 7 October 2020 (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.