Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marit Stiles


 * 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. The "keep" arguments are "she's polling at 45% of the vote" and "she's president of a major federal political party"; these arguments have no basis in our inclusion guidelines or policies or in established AfD practice. What we regularly do care about is either substantial third-party sourcing or meeting the WP:NPOL criteria.  Sandstein  17:27, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Marit Stiles

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Non-notable as a political candidate FUNgus guy (talk) 02:38, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions.  Every morning   (there's a halo...)  02:55, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions.  Every morning   (there's a halo...)  02:55, 9 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete. As always, people do not get Wikipedia articles just for being candidates in elections they have not won yet — if you cannot make and reliably source a credible claim that she already had preexisting notability for other reasons besides the candidacy, then she does not become notable until she wins the seat. Her term as president of a political party might be a potentially valid notability claim if it could be sourced to more than just her own primary source content about herself, but is not an automatic notability freebie that exempts her from having to be much, much better referenced than this. And I'm saying this as somebody who's tried to start an article about her in the past on party presidency grounds: the depth of coverage she got in that role just isn't where it would need to be to make an article out of it. Bearcat (talk) 03:27, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep This is a person polling at 45% of the vote, in a key riding in this province. In weeks she could be one of the most powerful people in Ontario. Deletionism is actively running wikipedia into the ground. There should be an abundance of information about her, on the internet, in a community-maintainable way.Spencerk (talk) 13:38, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
 * The amount of popular support that a candidate has in public opinion polling in advance of the election is not a notability criterion in and of itself. (And at any rate, where's your source for claiming that she's polling at 45 per cent? If it's insider information that you have because you're directly involved in her campaign, then you have a conflict of interest — but I can't find hide nor hair of that figure having been reported in any media at all, so the only other possibility left on the table is that you just made up a random number.) Obviously she'll qualify to have an article about her recreated after election day if she wins the seat, since her notability claim will have changed to one that guarantees an article — but merely being a candidate in an election that a person has not won yet is not an inclusion criterion regardless of how well the candidate is or isn't polling. If poll results early in the campaign were an infallible predictor of the end result, then Tom Mulcair would be Prime Minister of Canada, and Hillary Clinton would be president of the United States, and Olivia Chow would be mayor of Toronto, right now. But they're not, because polls can change over the course of the campaign. And no, "deletionism" isn't running Wikipedia into the ground, either — our entire value and credibility as a project depends on maintaining editorial standards about what it takes to qualify a person for inclusion. If we drop those, then we're just a LinkedIn clone on which anybody gets to have an article for any self-designated reason, and not an encyclopedia anymore. Bearcat (talk) 16:24, 9 May 2018 (UTC)


 * I agree that fringe candidates do not qualify for notability, and Wikipedia is not linkedin. But saying a candidate of a major party is non-notable, until being elected into parliament, is an obscene misuse of wikipedia's notability criterion, and clearly at-odds with the spirit of the project. Major candidates of political elections are critical to the historical record, and are ... covered widely in the press. This is awkward to explain. I have nothing to do with the candidate, and thanks for failing to assume good-faith. Your tone needs work. Spencerk (talk) 19:52, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Wiki's notability criteria have been fine-tuned to allow inclusion of historically-notable persons without becoming a dumpster for political advertisements. (Not saying that's what this page is, I do assume good faith:) If we let all non-fringe candidates have a page, we'd have thousands of self-promotional political advertisements without adding anything of relevance to the historical record of the election. At most, they deserve a short blurb on the riding page, "Incumbent Human#1 faced off against challenging Human#2, a from ." If there were reliable non-local references to her importance other than simply being a candidate, then her notability would be judged based on that. If your polling is accurate, and manifests as a win for her, then she will certainly have notability as an MPP-elect. Until then, a school board trustee mainly referencing her own Facebook page doesn't cut the mustard. FUNgus guy (talk) 04:44, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
 * For reference, candidates in this election that do cut the mustard include: former MP/MPPs, party leaders, city councillors of major cities, mayors of regionally-significant cities, newsworthy businesspeople, award-winning poets, title belt-winning boxers and an NHL hockey player. FUNgus guy (talk) 05:07, 11 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete, I looked for more than routine candidate coverage. Like Bearcat I was unable to locate significant independent coverage of her regarding her term as party president.  Fails WP:NPOL  Gab4gab (talk) 13:30, 10 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete, non notable unless she wins. Freedom789 (talk) 01:17, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete Not currently notable under the significant press coverage prong, and not notable under WP:GNG. SportingFlyer  talk  21:35, 11 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Comment the article doesn't have any independent references at all. Being "President of the NDP"  might be enough for notability; I think the position is the equivalent of the chairman of the Democratic National Committee in the US, but am not sure.  There's plenty of trivial coverage of her as NDP President or a member of the Toronto District School Board, but nothing more substantial. power~enwiki ( π,  ν ) 03:25, 12 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep. I think being president of a major federal political party definitely makes someone notable. -- Earl Andrew - talk 19:26, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Sure, if she were the subject of enough reliable source coverage to clear WP:GNG for it. But it is not an "inherently" notable distinction that would somehow exempt her from having to be referenced to reliable sources rather than primary ones. Notability does not live or die on what the article says, it lives or dies on how well the article does or doesn't reference what it says. Bearcat (talk) 20:47, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:36, 14 May 2018 (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.