Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robert-Falcon Ouellette


 * 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. j⚛e deckertalk 01:29, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Robert-Falcon Ouellette

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Running for municipal office does not make a person notable, per WP:POLOUTCOMES. No other indicators of notability. Magnolia677 (talk) 23:32, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Does this article not meet the notability guidelines under WP:NACADEMICS? Interlaker (talk) 23:50, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
 * What criteria listed there does this person meet? His university resume states he is "Program Director for the Aboriginal Focus Programs", and lists his PhD as his only academic publication of note. Magnolia677 (talk) 00:08, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
 * WP:NACADEMICS doesn't confer an automatic presumption of notability on every single person who happens to hold an academic position, but rather lays out specific criteria to distinguish notable academics from non-notable ones (e.g. notable and widely-cited academic publications) — and you haven't actually demonstrated or sourced any evidence here of how he meets any of them. Bearcat (talk) 18:51, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:14, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:14, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:14, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

As noted by nom, merely running for office (especially at the municipal level, but not actually at the provincial or federal level either) does not in and of itself get a person into Wikipedia — if you cannot make a credible and properly sourced case that he was already notable enough for an article, for other things independent of his candidacy, then he doesn't become notable enough for an article until he wins the election. But that hasn't been demonstrated here. It might be possible for him to get over another inclusion guideline, like WP:NACADEMICS, if the article were written much more substantively and sourced a lot better than this, but one primary source link to his own profile on the webpage of the university where he works doesn't cut it for sourcing. No prejudice against recreation in the future if (a) he wins election to a notable office, or (b) someone can actually write a substantive and properly sourced article that puts the weight on his academic career, but this version is a delete. Bearcat (talk) 18:51, 9 October 2014 (UTC) 
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:25, 14 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete. No claim of significance is given in the article, so this is close to an A7 speedy deletion. He does not appear to pass WP:POLITICIAN nor WP:PROF. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:35, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete He doesn't meet the notability requirements for politicians or academics. 131.118.229.17 (talk) 20:44, 21 October 2014 (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.