Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ken McGowan


 * 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   no consensus. Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 11:44, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Ken McGowan

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

Does not meet the criteria for WP:POLITICIAN. It's unclear what would make him notable as an environmentalist, entrepreneur or author either. His own website, as listed, appear defunct. West Eddy (talk) 11:05, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep as a former leader of a registered political party. Falls under WP:OUTCOMES. Me-123567-Me (talk) 15:34, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment: Possible conflict of interest: Me-123567-Me has identified as a Green Party supporter on his/her user page.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by West Eddy (talk • contribs) 05:47, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment : Isn't that a case of the kettle calling the pot black West Eddy? Your attempt to single out the GPNS and ALL of it's leaders, first, current and everyone in between stinks of political motivation. What part of: "Leaders of registered political parties at the national or major sub-national (state, province, prefecture, etc.) level are usually considered notable regardless of that party's degree of electoral success. WP:OUTCOMES#People" are you having trouble with? I'll be happy to explain it to you. Just ask. But then I don't think you're after the truth here, I think you're just trying to erase GPNS history from from the site. Pdacortex (talk) 19:30, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
 * The Green Part is notable, I only want to remove the pages for non-notable people. I don't have any political affiliations, particularly in Nova Scotia. Let's try to keep the emotions out of the editing. West Eddy (talk) 21:42, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
 * You were the first to go ad hominem in these discussions by calling into question the ethics and motivations of a fellow editor (Me-123567-Me) West Eddy. When you stoop to such intellectually impoverished tactics, you must expect to be taken to task over them. Now I will say this one more time: as per WP:OUTCOMES Leaders of political parties, regardless of electoral success, are notable people. You are doing a disservice to Wikipedia and future historians by vandalising the site based on your own personal assumptions. And by ignoring Wikipedia's policies. Pdacortex (talk) 09:12, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
 * You're deliberately omitting the word "usually". You need to show notability for this person, not just the party. West Eddy (talk) 15:38, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
 * That's simply not true West Eddy. Every place I quoted with the WP:OUTCOMES policy I quoted it in full with the word usually in. With the exception of this one time. You really are grasping at straws here. BTW "usually" means more often than not. That would suggest that in the case of politicians we should err on the side of caution, and not do what you have done. Pdacortex (talk) 18:19, 27 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep media verification http://www.annapoliscountyspectator.ca/News/Politics/2007-04-10/article-592474/Ken-McGowan-joins-Green-leadership-bid/1 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pdacortex (talk • contribs) 02:13, 26 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep : historical copy of McGowan's website http://web.archive.org/web/20070928062125/http://kenmcgowan.ca/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=5&Itemid=6 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pdacortex (talk • contribs) 02:20, 26 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep : Media verification http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/nova-scotia-greens-pick-new-leader/article757629/ Pdacortex (talk) 02:38, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete, not notable, a short term leader while no election was called. 117Avenue (talk) 03:51, 26 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep : Leaders of registered political parties at the national or major sub-national (state, province, prefecture, etc.) level are usually considered notable regardless of that party's degree of electoral success. WP:OUTCOMES#People Pdacortex (talk) 04:10, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
 * The operative word here being usually; a party leader can still be redirected to the article on the party if reliable source coverage is not present. Bearcat (talk) 20:45, 26 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep : During McGowan's leadership the party reached 7% in an Angus Read public opinion poll http://www.angus-reid.com/polls/2253/honeymoon_over_for_macdonald_in_nova_scotia/ the highest the GPNS has ever been in the polls, before or after him. Pdacortex (talk) 04:33, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
 * That shows the party's notability, not his. West Eddy (talk) 15:38, 27 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep : Media verification http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/nova-scotia/story/2007/05/07/mcgowan-green.html Pdacortex (talk) 04:56, 26 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep : in response to 117Avenue - by-election during McGowan's leadership http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cole_Harbour-Eastern_Passage_provincial_by-election,_2007 05:06, 26 April 2012 (UTC)Pdacortex (talk) 05:07, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment: Pdacortex... can you please vote just once? West Eddy (talk) 15:59, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment Sure, just consider all of my Keeps as one vote.
 * Running as a candidate in a by-election does not confer notability per WP:POLITICIAN if the person doesn't win it. Bearcat (talk) 20:42, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
 * That's true. The comment was a rebuttal to claim that no election was called during his leadership. Pdacortex (talk) 18:19, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Comment I have struck Pdacortex's additional !votes for clarity. - Running On Brains (talk) 16:36, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment' Thanks running on brains my intent was not to stuff the ballot box. This is my first time debating a deletion, and I thought the keeps/deletes were just a preface used in statements during debates to indicate your position/stance in the debate. Pdacortex (talk) 18:19, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nova Scotia-related deletion discussions.  — Frankie (talk) 19:09, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions.  — Frankie (talk) 19:09, 26 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Notability is not determined by imposing blanket rules like "all leaders of political parties are inherently notable", but by the presence or absence of coverage about him in reliable sources. A political party leader is certainly always valid as a potential article topic, but valid referencing still has to be present — and standard AFD practice has always allowed for a political party leader to be redirected to the article on the party, and not given a standalone article, if legitimate, substantial coverage of him in reliable sources is not present and cannot be added. Accordingly, keep if the article can be spruced up to meet proper notability and sourcing standards within the next week, and redirect to Green Party of Nova Scotia if it can't. There is no "it will get cleaned up someday" exemption for biographies of living people anymore, and it's not good enough to point to the existence of possible sources that never actually get added to the article — the article either actually gets cleaned up immediately or it goes, no in between. Bearcat (talk) 20:42, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
 * That's a a bit more constructive suggestion than West Eddy's scorched earth tactics. Nevertheless it may be even more useful if you can reference the policy of: the article either actually gets cleaned up immediately or it goes, no in between. Thank you. Pdacortex (talk) 09:27, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi Bearcat I found the policy you mentioned "As of April 3, 2010, a new proposed deletion process was established, requiring all BLPs created after March 18, 2010 to have at least one source that supports at least one statement made about the person in the article, or it can be proposed for deletion. This is known as a BLPPROD. The tag may not be removed until a reliable source is provided, and if none is forthcoming, the article may be deleted after ten days." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:BLP#Proposed_deletion_of_biographies_of_living_people -- OK I'll volunteer to try to clean up this page with in the next 10 days. I hope that others will volunteer to do the same for the other GPNS leaders. Leaders of political parties are not normal people :-) The public needs access to their information so that they can make informed decisions based on the best available information at election times. Be that current or historical information. And that's probably the reason for policy WP:OUTCOMES. We're all here to try to make the best information available to Wiki readers. So please, can someone else jump in and help clean up the other GPNS leaders bios? Thank you Pdacortex (talk) 13:03, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Exactly right. It's important to realize that Wikipedia's standards have tightened up considerably over the years — not because we're trying to be difficult for the sake of being difficult, but because we've had genuine and extremely serious problems over the years with poorly sourced or unsourced articles. The idea used to be that certain classes of topics were "inherently notable", and therefore entitled to keep articles regardless of the quality of what was actually written, but that's no longer a helpful or useful way to approach things on here. Instead, we've had to shift toward talking about those classes of articles being valid as potential topics for articles, but still evaluating whether the finished article actually gets to stay or go on the basis of whether it's actually sourced up properly or not. Essentially, we've had to shift away from being primarily concerned about the volume of Wikipedia content and toward the quality of it. Bearcat (talk) 14:32, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Reasonably well-sourced (at least right now), references seem intact. It could use some more references, particularly for the second paragraph of the lead section. I already cleaned up one of these GPNS leader articles; glad to see someone cleaned up (mostly) this one.Marikafragen (talk) 01:41, 3 May 2012 (UTC)


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


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   05:12, 3 May 2012 (UTC)




 * As per Bearcat: keep it, if it was cleaned up and reliable source provided. The article has been cleaned up. And reliable sources have been provided.

Moreover WP:OUTCOMES#People is clear: Elected and appointed political figures at the national level are generally regarded as notable, as are usually those at the major sub-national level (US state, Canadian province, Japanese prefecture, etc.) Political leaders are given special consideration WP policies because they do influence public opinion. Even the from the small parties. After all, all political parties start small, and their early history, which is comprised of their early leaders, is important to document. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pdacortex (talk • contribs) 06:26, 4 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Please stop removing references vandalizing the page as I'm working on it West EddyPdacortex (talk) 10:03, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
 * This discussion should be on the talk page, but for clarification I didn't vandalize the page; I removed references that were inappropriate (an internal wikipedia page and an ebook with text lifted from wikipedia). See WP:RELIABLESOURCES for help. West Eddy (talk) 10:15, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Why are you doing this while I'm working on the page West Eddy? And for your information the book mentioned WP as only one of the sources. It's a valid reference. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pdacortex (talk • contribs) 10:29, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Discuss this on the talk page: Talk:Ken_McGowan. You can also ask me questions on my talk page if you prefer. West Eddy (talk) 10:33, 5 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep though just, under #3 of WP:POLITICIAN. Appears to meet general notability guidelines as having received significant coverage by multiple reliable sources. 99.136.254.195 (talk) 12:55, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment - There seems to be very little information about Ken McGowan himself, but there is info that could be included in the Green Party of Nova Scotia page. West Eddy (talk) 20:29, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Agreed, and my 'keep' is a weak one, verging on 'neutral'. Though he's the subject of several articles, they're all within the context of his role in the party, and none of them offer much in the way of biographical content. 99.136.254.195 (talk) 22:57, 5 May 2012 (UTC)



That's an interesting opinion West Eddy. A a bit disingenuous, but interesting.

McGowan is notable precisely because he was a Green Party leader. Therefore most of the press on him will be because of his involvement in, and the actions he took on behalf of in the Green Party. It seems to me that you want to remove the page for the very reasons that make him notable.

Additional points in favour of keeping the page are:


 * Ryan Watson's (another GPNS leader) page was kept with less references or information available, (well that was true before you started removing valid references again) and it would be inconsistent to remove one and keep the other. What kind of a precedent would that set?


 * This page was considered a keeper before it was Relisted and no compelling arguments have been offered up since then that would suggest the previous ruling should be overturned.


 * In fact, the page stronger than before the Relisting, with better information and more reliable sources quoted ( again, that was before you started removing valid references West Eddy) than any other GPNS leader with the exception of Nick Wright.


 * Moreover the page meets the requirements of WP:OUTCOMES#People and survived Proposed deletion of biographies of living people

Isn't it time for you to stop your over aggressive "editing" and helped to make the page better? Pdacortex (talk) 11:32, 6 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment- Pdacortex, try to edit and discuss this dispassionately.


 * Making a page better means adding relevant, sourced information from proper sources. It also means removing unsourced info and opinions.


 * Remember, wikipedia doesn't operate on the basis of precedent. Also, surviving BLP PROD is not an indication of significance.


 * If there is any real biographical information about McGowan, I can see some merit to this article. Otherwise, I think it is best to place the info under Green Party of Nova Scotia. Most of the info seems to be related to his winning of the leadership, this seems more like a case of WP:BIO1E. West Eddy (talk) 16:27, 6 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete Non-elected candidate without other activities that might merit a place. Stepping down in anger does not make a politician notable (nor anybody else). Night of the Big Wind  talk  20:53, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep Leader of a major national party is notable; the question might be whether the Greens qualify for that, andI think that is actually the real issue in these nominations,. I am inclined to think we can best avoid bias in articles involving political parties by a strong effort to inclusion.  DGG ( talk ) 03:54, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete That subject received some coverage in 2006 to 2008 does not make him notable enough for inclusion per WP:NTEMP.  Since he was never elected to a public office, he has no overall WP:GNG notability.  A mention of his name in a succession of leadership in the Green Party of Canada article should be sufficient coverage since he is otherwise not notable. DocTree (talk) 18:52, 11 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.