Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nathaniel Erskine-Smith


 * 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.  MBisanz  talk 19:26, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Nathaniel Erskine-Smith

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Article about an unelected candidate for political office &mdash;&thinsp;JJMC89&thinsp; (T&middot;E&middot;C) 01:31, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. &mdash;&thinsp;JJMC89&thinsp; (T&middot;E&middot;C) 01:37, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. &mdash;&thinsp;JJMC89&thinsp; (T&middot;E&middot;C) 01:37, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:57, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * As always, an unelected candidate in an election — past, present or future doesn't matter — is not eligible for a Wikipedia article on that basis itself. If you cannot make a credible and properly sourced case that he was already eligible for an article for some other reason before he became a candidate, then he does not become eligible for an article until he wins the election. This article gives and sources no indication that he would get over any other inclusion rule instead of WP:NPOL, and further is written very much like a campaign brochure rather than an encyclopedia article — which is exactly the kind of article that no politician, even a full-fledged office holder who passes NPOL #1, is ever allowed to have on here. And on top of that, the closest thing here to an acceptable reliable source is the newspaper of Centennial College's journalism program — but college and university papers are a class of sourcing that we deprecate as being unable to carry a topic's notability in and of themselves. They're acceptable for some additional confirmation of facts after the topic's notability has been properly established by more widely-distributed sources, but they cannot get a person into Wikipedia if they are the best sources you've got. (Also, conflict of interest applies here, as the creator's username exactly matches the name of the treasurer of Erskine-Smith's electoral district association.) Delete — he can have an article in October if he wins the seat, but not before. Bearcat (talk) 02:49, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 07:52, 16 July 2015 (UTC) Delete - Wikipedia is not a campaign advertising host Kraxler (talk) 15:28, 24 July 2015 (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.