Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mike Maguire (Canadian politician)


 * 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. Tawker (talk) 07:01, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Mike Maguire (Canadian politician)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Non-notable politician, never elected, fails WP:POLITICIAN, lack of "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject of the article". Also fails WP:BLP as most of the text is unreferenced. As per the guideline for unelected candidates, the article was redirected to the appropriate election article, but the article creator reverted. Ahunt (talk) 00:21, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep. I know it's futile, but I think articles like these should exist. -- Earl Andrew - talk 00:24, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment: If you want your "keep" to carry some weight in the final close of this debate you really should cite a reason why the guidelines and polices should be ignored and the article kept in the special case. - Ahunt (talk) 00:37, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
 * What substantive or encyclopedic purpose could keeping articles about unelected candidates for purely local offices — permanently, in an encyclopedia with an international scope and readership — possibly serve? Bearcat (talk) 20:08, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Note: Notification of the existence of this AfD has been made at WikiProject Politics, within whose scope this article falls. - Ahunt (talk) 00:34, 28 March 2014 (UTC) There is no reason to remove it. Maguire has had a notable professional and political career, worthy of its own page. Redirecting his name to the 2010 Ottawa municipal elections page ignores his other qualifications and candidacies. If fellow "aspiring politicians" like Terry Kilrea deserve a page, Maguire does too.JOttawa16 (talk) 14:48, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete Fails WP:POLITICIAN as an unelected former candidate., if you think articles like this about a candidate that got 2.45% of the vote should be kept, you are free to argue that at the talk page of the notability guideline. If consensus goes your way, so be it. Consider, though, the monumental volunteer effort required to maintain hundreds of thousands of such biographies of insignificant political figures. I would prefer to work on articles about truly significant and notable politicians. The kind that win elections and govern.  Cullen 328  Let's discuss it  03:15, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment: This is premature, and therefore violates WP:CRYSTALBALL, but I foresee Maguire being the main challenger to mayor Watson in the mayoral election in October. Obviously candidates who get 2% of the vote are not notable, but I foresee him getting much more. I am well aware that I'm not making any good arguments for keeping this article. I just wanted to state that my opinion on the matter. -- Earl Andrew - talk 03:54, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Reply' If you are correct and he wins that election,, then the article can be recreated after his victory. I will gladly support keeping it at that time.  Cullen 328  Let's discuss it  05:20, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Nowhere in any Wikipedia guideline does the number of votes that a person gets or doesn't get on election day have anything to do with whether they're notable enough for an article or not. Bearcat (talk) 20:08, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
 * That may well be true,, but it stands to reason that a candidate who gets less than 3% of the vote is far less likely to be notable for other reasons than a candidate who gets 49% of the vote. Those who advocate liberalizing WP:POLITICIAN need to address such issues, in my opinion.  Cullen 328  Let's discuss it  06:19, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Granted, but the candidate who gets 49% but loses still doesn't get to claim that getting 49% of the vote is a valid notability claim in and of itself — they may be notable for other reasons or they may not, but the number of votes they got in any given race isn't what gets them there. And John Turmel stands as proof that, unlikely though it may be in most cases, it's certainly still possible for the 0-3% guy to get over the bar too. Bearcat (talk) 06:32, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Read WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS like I suggested below — and then once you're done, click on Terry Kilrea again and see what just happened. Bearcat (talk) 20:11, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:39, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:39, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:39, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Per WP:POLITICIAN, an election candidate does not qualify for an article just for being a candidate — if you cannot make a sufficiently strong and well-referenced claim that they were already notable enough for an article before becoming a candidate, then they do not become notable until they win the election. Despite the creator's claim here that "Maguire has had a notable professional and political career", the article as written doesn't even begin to suggest a notability claim for his business career — all it does is list his various unsuccessful candidacies. Creator also needs to see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS; just because some other person has an article who maybe shouldn't doesn't create new exemptions from Wikipedia's content and sourcing rules. If Maguire wins the election, then he'll certainly qualify for an article at that time since he'll actually be taking office as a real honest-to-goodness mayor, but he doesn't qualify for an article just for running for office — and if he's actually established enough true notability as a businessperson to get past WP:GNG despite his current lack of notability as a politician, then I'd be more than willing to change my mind if the article were rewritten to place the weight where it belongs. As things stand right now, however, it's a delete. Bearcat (talk) 19:40, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete He was a failed candidate who not only failed but was trounced.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:55, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete Aside from getting 2.45% of the vote in a municipal election, winning a federal nomination but never getting to run and working on two campaigns, the only other info here is where he lives and went to school. So, there's nothing in the article that leads me to think he's notable for an encyclopedia at this time. If he gets elected mayor in 2014, than he would obviously be notable and should be added at that time. Cmr08 (talk) 06:47, 4 April 2014 (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.