Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Randall Denley


 * 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   redirect to Ontario_general_election,_2011_(candidates). v/r - TP 03:28, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Randall Denley

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Delete. Notability is not established in accordance with the topical notability guidelines for authors or politicians, or the general notability guidelines. Cind.  amuse  (Cindy) 23:16, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions.  — &mdash; alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 23:17, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions.  — &mdash; alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 23:18, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions.  — &mdash; alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 23:19, 17 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete per WP:POLITICIAN. There is some coverage in local media even after discounting the coverage by his former employer, but nothing above what would be expected for a candidate. VQuakr (talk) 23:44, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Just curious how you went about determining that coverage in local media is the same, more or less, for other candidates? Ottawahitech (talk) 13:24, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
 * All coverage that I could find in independent sources was basic news reporting on his candidacy. Per WP:POLITICIAN, merely being a candidate does not imply that the person is notable enough to merit an article. I did not compare the subjects coverage to other people in the election; we use external scales to judge notability rather than comparing an article to other articles. VQuakr (talk) 01:12, 25 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete, Wikipedia's not for electioneering, and he hasn't done enough to be especially notable otherwise.  PK T (alk)  11:59, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not for electioneering? Why not? I personally believe elections are an important part of democracy which cannot exist without free access to information – and what better way to get unbiased information than at Wikipedia? As it stands the Ontario elections are getting very poor coverage at Wikipedia  - too few Wikipedians are actively involved in editing pages and way too few readers from Ontario are paying attention when the elections are only two weeks away. This could have been a golden opportunity to change the mindset of some Canadians about Wikipedia, if only... Ottawahitech (talk) 02:08, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
 * We don't keep articles just because the topic is in the news or because someone thinks the article's existence furthers a worthy goal. I agree that Wikipedia suffers from systemic bias. Compromising our notability standards is not the way to correct this. Lagrange613 (talk) 05:40, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Ottawahitech, your talk page shows that you've been concerned about how comprehensively Ottawa elections are covered for at least four years. Some things haven't changed in that time - Wikipedia is still not a news site and still requires other sources to cover a person or event first.  Wikinews may be a better place for you to improve the coverage of these elections, which understandably don't get a whole lot of reliable coverage outside of the province itself.--~TPW 01:32, 25 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep I am astounded that no one from Ottawa has come to Mr. Denley's defence. Not notable? Just about any Ottawan would disagree. Randall Denley was well-known as an Ottawa Citizen columnist way before he decided to run for office. Why there is not an existing article about him here is anyone’s guess.  As Wikipedians I believe we all have a common goal of promoting Wikipedia, but how will we do it if we are turning off a very large audience by declaring that their people are not notable enough to be included in Wikipedia?  Ottawahitech (talk) 02:08, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Being well known in Ottawa might make him notable, but it doesn't have to. Do any of the criteria at WP:BIO apply, for example? Lagrange613 (talk) 00:49, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Mr. Denley has worked as a columnist for the Ottawa Citizen for almost 20 years. I don't believe he would have lasted this long in this major newpaper if people did not think that he was an excellent journalist. Ottawahitech (talk) 04:27, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Someone can be good at something and still not notable, even if many people agree. Lagrange613 (talk) 05:40, 23 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Redirect per WP:POLITICIAN . My guess is that there is not an article on the gentlemen because he does not meet the general notability guideline, which should be applied evenly in all cases.  However, the politician guideline is clear that deletion is not the preferred option in such a case; the relevant information about Mr. Denley can be included in an article about the campaign itself.--~TPW 02:17, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Are you sayng that there are no articles aboutRandall Denley? - If so, you must have overlooked the five references llisted in the article,  and if this is not enough just google. You will find dozens! Ottawahitech (talk) 04:02, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Are you saying that any subject that meets Wikipedia's notability guidelines has a page on Wikipedia? Ottawahitech (talk) 17:12, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I am still confused about why everyone here seems to think that Randall Denley is not a notable person. If you take the time to click on the links, conveniently located on the top of this page, you will see the following:
 * google web About 33,900 results
 * google news About 133 results
 * google books About 14 results
 * google scholar Results 1 - 10 of about 15
 * So my question is: how many links does it take to make a person notable enough for Wikipedia? Ottawahitech (talk) 04:00, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
 * The answer is that Google hits do not confer notability. Lagrange613 (talk) 05:40, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Tens of thousands of google hits are not significant when considering notability at Wikipedia? So what does? Ottawahitech (talk) 13:07, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Take a look at the general notability guideline and then the notability guideline dealing specifically with people, which reads, in part, "Avoid criteria based on search engine statistics". Lagrange613 (talk) 16:11, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
 * If you are referring to BIO then I do not see the relevance to Randall Denley. He is not famous/infamous because he is related to someone else, nor is he part of the adult film industry. Also is this of interest Articles_for_deletion/Precedents/Archive
 * Ottawahitech (talk) 16:52, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm referring to the entire guideline; I quoted the second bulleted paragraph under "Invalid criteria", not the first. The "Common outcomes" page is inactive and retained only for historical reference. Consensus on notability has shifted in the eight years since the discussion you're referring to, as evidenced by the links I've provided specifically refuting the argument that Google hits impute notability. Lagrange613 (talk) 17:05, 24 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete since there doesn't appear to be a PC candidate page for this election. This candidate does not warrant an article based on this reason alone. Other attributes are non-notable. Suttungr (talk) 13:22, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Are you saying that the PC party is not notable? Ottawahitech (talk) 13:10, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
 * There is a page for all candidates in the election here. I'm not sure how that relates, though, since notability is not inherited.--~TPW 22:33, 24 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Redirect to Ontario_general_election,_2011_(candidates). We can always flesh out the page to an article should it be warranted. Moogwrench (talk) 23:14, 24 September 2011 (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.