Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mike Windsor


 * 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:02, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Mike Windsor

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Subject is a Canadian politician who has not won any elections or held in any high level politician positions (lost twice in 2015 and 2017). Fails WP:NPOL.  CASSIOPEIA(talk) 15:00, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions.  CASSIOPEIA(talk) 15:00, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions.  CASSIOPEIA(talk) 15:00, 17 May 2019

(UTC)
 * WP:NPOL specifically states that a "Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage" may also be included. Considering the Mr. Windsor has run for the same position 3 times in the same area. To this community he is considered a major political figure with media apperances reaching the national level. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zech22 (talk • contribs)
 * That criterion covers the notability of mayors and city councillors, not unelected candidates for anything. Every unelected candidate in every election could always claim to pass that criterion if it included candidates, which would mean that NPOL #2 cancelled NPOL #1 as inherently meaningless. You've also shown no evidence whatsoever of this nationalized coverage you claim he has. Bearcat (talk) 18:26, 21 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete Clearly fails WP:NPOL as an unsuccessful candidate in an election. Most sources are primary and of those that aren't, one is a general announcement about the 2015 elections and he two others are actually the same source referenced twice about him filing to run in said election so its also a WP:GNG fail. Additionally, the article was created by an account that has only made edits either to this article or articles that have some relation to Windsor so this could also very well be a case of WP:COI. Best, GPL93 (talk) 15:36, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete. Some candidates may be notable, but this one is not. There are no references about his career or anything but his status as a candidate. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 18:06, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete This article is being used for election purposes and this candidate is not notable. If/when he gets elected it could be recreated. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:20, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete per NPOL. – bradv 🍁  01:20, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete. People do not get Wikipedia articles just for being candidates in elections they did not win — a person normally has to win the election to be considered notable as a politician, because with only rare exceptions the notability test for politicians is holding office and not just running for it. There are two possible ways that a non-winning candidate can get around that — if they already had preexisting notability for other reasons that would already have gotten them an article anyway (e.g. Cynthia Nixon), or they can be especially well-referenced to a volume of nationalizing coverage that goes significantly beyond just what every candidate in every election can always show and thus marks their candidacy out as a special case (e.g. Christine O'Donnell) — but neither of those conditions have been demonstrated here. This just cites one piece of routine local "party announces candidate" coverage of the type that every candidate in every riding always gets, and four primary sources that are not support for notability at all. Obviously no prejudice against recreation on or after October 21 if he wins, but nothing here qualifies him to already have a Wikipedia article as of May 21. Bearcat (talk) 18:21, 21 May 2019 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it.</b> 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.