Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Raymond Samuels (2nd nomination)


 * 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 00:41, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Raymond Samuels
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

WP:BLP of a person with no strong claim to passing Wikipedia's notability rules. As a politician, he's resting on the leadership of a political party that was never actually registered with Elections Canada and never verifiably had any significant membership beyond him alone, and as a writer he's tied entirely to self-published print on demand titles. The coverage is all either WP:ROUTINE coverage of his non-winning candidacies for office as the sole candidate of his unregistered party or bad primary sourcing, with not a whit of substantive coverage that would satisfy WP:GNG. This was created in 2005, so it's a holdover from a very different time in Wikipedia's evolution: all leaders of political parties were permitted inclusion regardless of the party's fringiness, and you could get away with sourcing stuff to press releases and student newspapers and primary sources and routine coverage that just namechecked his existence. But WP:BLP, WP:NPOL, WP:GNG and WP:RS have all been tightened up considerably in the past ten years, so many things that were considered okay in 2005 just aren't acceptable anymore. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 01:50, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- Eclipsed (talk) (email) 15:44, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- Eclipsed (talk) (email) 15:44, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- Eclipsed (talk) (email) 15:44, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. -- Eclipsed (talk) (email) 15:44, 17 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment No opinion at this time, but just reading that old AFD -- wow. Things have changed. I started in 2006 and I guess I didn't take part in AFDs right away. Some of the arguments are so weak, so much "it's good for Wikipedia to have this", "not paper", and at least one from an administrator. Sorry. A bit off topic but I'm amazed.  freshacconci  talk to me  18:14, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:31, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — ☮ JAaron95  Talk   15:31, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
 * delete an amazing work of puffery. Funny thing, all independent sources seem to speak of nonnotability. Staszek Lem (talk) 23:56, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete: puffery indeed, as per @Staszek Lem. Quis separabit?  15:29, 27 August 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.