Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Seamus Burke


 * 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 and restore redirect. ✗ plicit  00:09, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

Seamus Burke

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Fail of WP:POLITICIAN and WP:GNG. nearlyevil 665  14:26, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions.  nearlyevil  665  14:26, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions.  nearlyevil  665  14:26, 1 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete, and then restore prior redirect. People do not get Wikipedia articles just for standing as candidates in elections they did not win — the notability test for politicians is holding a notable office, not just running for one, and county council isn't an inherently notable office under WP:NPOL in the first place, so he still wouldn't necessarily be notable enough for inclusion even if he had won the election — but this neither makes any claim that he would have had preexisting notability for other reasons independent of the candidacy, nor sources any credible reason to treat his candidacy as a special case of greater notability than everybody else's candidacies. But this title had stood for 15 years as a stable redirect to the actual Irish TD Séamus Burke until it was converted into this new article about a different person earlier today — so the content about the candidate should certainly be deleted, but the original redirect should be retained. Bearcat (talk) 14:54, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

This article should be kept.

Not only is Mr.Burke a political candidate he is a award winning entreprauner. He holds a patent for his work on the sheep restrainer, an item which is commonplace across Irish farms. In addition to this I believe the article does not violate GNG. I will explain why here. Significant coverage: This person has been covered multiple times. He was mentioned in a TUI union document from 2016, He was also covered in a copy of the westmeath examiner. Also he has his bio page on his party website. Multiple other politicians have been mentioned with far less coverage. So I believe he fufills this criteria of the GNG. Reliable: Seamus Burke has been covered in multiple sources. The westmeath examiner is a trusted news agent and did details on all candidates, such as the aforementioned Seamus Burke. He was also mentioned briefly in a national irish times story. As such all sources on him are reliable Sources: According to the GNGs multiple sources are expected. As can be seen in the article multiple sources have been provided. The GNGs also state that these sources must be secondary. The westmeath examiner and rte.ie would be counted as secondary sources for these purposes. Independent of the subject: The sources provided are independent of the subject. While some are not, multiple are completly independent such as the Westmeath LEA candidate details website, the westmeath examiner article and rte.ies election results page. As I have explained here the article complies with the General notability guidleines. In addition to this being a award winning, patent holding entreprauner would warrent an article. I will be expanding the article within the coming days to make it more complient with the notability guidelines. FluffyMrSheep (talk) 19:36, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Firstly, TUI union documents and bio pages on his party website are not reliable or notability-supporting sources.
 * Secondly, even with the few sources that are actual media, GNG still doesn't just count the media hits and keep anybody who surpasses an arbitrary number. GNG actually tests the sources for their depth, their geographic range and the context of what they're covering the person for, and discounts some kinds of media coverage as being worth much less than some other kinds of media coverage. For example, local coverage in the local newspaper of a person in the context of running for (but not winning) election to a local political office does not contribute toward making a person encyclopedically notable at all, especially for an office where even winning wouldn't necessarily have made him wikinotable per se.
 * Thirdly, holding a patent on something is also not an instant notability freebie that would automatically entitle a person to a Wikipedia article on that basis either. It would still be a question of the depth and range of sources he could show about him in the context of his career as an inventor, and does not automatically guarantee him an article just because the text has the word "patent" in it.
 * All in all, you're not actually understanding our rules. Bearcat (talk) 13:25, 2 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete (and replace/restore redirect to Séamus Burke). As has been noted, the subject fails WP:GNG and WP:POLITICIAN. In terms of the latter, being an unsuccessful local election candidate (<200 votes in Mullingar LEA) falls significantly short of the threshold. Even successful/sitting Irish county councillors do not automatically meet the threshold. In terms of the former, a WP:BEFORE barely returns the same low-level ROTM/passing-mention coverage we might expect for any local election candidate. (Suggestions that a passing-mention in RTÉ election coverage meets SIGCOV, suggests a misunderstanding of that guideline.) I am struggling to find a "kind" way to respond to the other potential claims, so will simply note that these things (like being one of millions of patent holders, or one of 10s/100s of thousands of YouTubers with >1000 subscribers) are not contributory to notability. Subject falls significantly below applicable thresholds. Guliolopez (talk) 20:06, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete - and restore previous redirect, per both arguments above. The subject at hand doesn't even meet ANYBIO, nor any SNG with a lower threshold for notability. See what Bearcat said above. NOTPROMO applies. 174.212.228.209 (talk) 20:21, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete - per nom and restore previous redirect. Spleodrach (talk) 10:23, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete has misunderstood the purpose of verification of references in ascertaining notability. It's not to determine whether the person existed, or actually did stand in a particular election, but whether their contribution is independently notable, so the reliability of sources is besides the point. Local newspapers have always listed and sometimes even given miniprofiles of local election candidates. That doesn't make them notable. –Iveagh Gardens (talk) 14:04, 6 May 2021 (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.