Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Naomi Rankin




 * 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 to delete, after extended time for discussion. BD2412 T 06:39, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

Naomi Rankin

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

No claim of notability aside from being the leader of a Canadian provincial party which receives less than a hundredth of a percent of the vote each election. The citations given are nothing more than mere mentions of the subject's participation in provincial elections. Yue 🌙 23:23, 5 September 2022 (UTC) Relisting comment: Two arguments GNG met, two arguments GNG not met. Which is it? I warmly encourage everyone who has voted to reassess their submission and confirm or change their decision, particular the earlier participants, to see if later arguments are compelling. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MaxnaCarta (talk) 07:06, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep not even sure why it was nominated, she's got a feature in the Toronto Star and the Edmonton Journal, in the article itself. She's also featured in a French CBC article, GNG has been met. I can pull up many other similar sources. Oaktree b (talk) 00:10, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I disagree that her being a perennial candidate and receiving coverage because of that warrants the creation and retainment of her own article per WP:POLITICIAN, but my interpretation of the guidelines surrounding political coverage is just one of many yet to be stated. If you expand the article and add to her notability by introducing sources that are superior to the existing ones (which are almost all mere mentions), then this proposed deletion can be closed quickly through my withdrawal. In its present form there is no obvious claim to notability in the article; what does this subject have that many other perennial candidates and leaders of minor parties do not, which warrants their own individual article? Why not a redirect to Communist Party – Alberta or Perennial candidate? This is just my personal opinion and interpretation of biographical guidelines though, so if the majority of those who respond disagree with me, then there is nothing else to be said from me. Yue 🌙 00:38, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete and redirect to Communist Party – Alberta. Even the supposedly good sources (like the Star and the Journal) are mainly talking about the party; most of the others are primary. Article subject does not meet WP:POLITICIAN nor WP:GNG and does not warrant standalone coverage. LizardJr8 (talk) 02:56, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Women,  and Canada.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 19:59, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep per GNG. The sources in the Toronto Star and Edmonton Journal exceed the routine coverage typical candidates receive, especially those on the political fringes. pburka (talk) 20:24, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete per Yue (nomination statement and subsequent comments) and LizardJr8. Fails WP:NPOL and WP:GNG. No objection to redirecting to one of the targets (Communist Party – Alberta or Perennial candidate) suggested above. Sal2100 (talk) 19:02, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Keep in agreement with Oaktree b. Longest-serving political party leader in the province, and a perennial candidate in every federal and provincial candidate since 1982. Because of that, there is ~40 years' worth of WP:SUSTAINED, in-depth coverage about Naomi Rankin, in addition to the three mentioned to date within this AfD discussion, which easily satisfy WP:GNG. (In fact, so many feature articles turn up in Newspapers.com that it makes you want to throw up your hands because it will take so long to go through it all.) I also don't agree with the interpretation that the articles cited are more about the party than about the candidate. Yes, the writing in the article still needs improvement, but we've tried to fix it just enough so there is a clearer claim to notability. Personally I don't have time to properly fix this article at the moment, but in the future, if it's writing help you're after, or you genuinely want to debate policy interpretation like this, I would suggest posting to Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Women_in_Red, where you will get a lot of feedback and assistance from people who can help. (And not every assessment there ends up with a "keep", but in this case I think you would get enough editing help that you would be happy with the outcome, as you suggest.) Cielquiparle (talk) 07:15, 12 September 2022 (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.