Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Trevor Kirczenow


 * 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 keep. ✗ plicit  01:35, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Trevor Kirczenow

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

A deletion alert for this article was posted a while ago by an account which is now blocked. That being said there are questions about the notability of this Wikipedia page. The article remains on Wikipedia primarily for the subject's notability as a researcher that may be the case, though arguably not. It appears that this page is on Wikipedia as a researcher, though the article seems to be written almost as a political candidate page/flyer. Looking at the subject's name on Wikipedia, though only appear as a political candidate on various pages. The subject of the page has only run as a candidate in multiple elections, finishing second. As a politician this subject does not meet WP:NOTABILITY at all. The work as a researcher and as an advocate does appear to be substantive. The question remains as to whether this really meets notability to remain on Wikipedia. If the conclusion is the article meets notability, it should be rewritten to a neutral tone and all deletion templates removed.

For my part I doubt this article is a notable one and it appears to be a page to boost political profile of a secondary political candidate. I would nominate to delete though I would love to hear others opinions to resolve.  Words in the Wind  (talk) 22:11, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 22:37, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 22:37, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 22:38, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 22:38, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 22:38, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗  plicit  23:43, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep passes GNG, with no prejudice to recasting of artcle, but the Add is not clean-up. Djflem (talk) 14:21, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Keep. This is such an obvious WP:GNG pass I don't really know what else to say. -- asilvering (talk) 03:51, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I guess I will add, for anyone reading this who is unfamiliar with Canadian politics, that the "boost political profile of a secondary political candidate" assertion has no real basis - the riding he runs in hasn't flipped since 2000, and is in no serious danger of doing so in the 2025 federal election either. A Wikipedia article isn't going to make much of a difference to his political profile. -- asilvering (talk) 03:57, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
 * definitely meets GNG. There is sufficient significant coverage by independent, reliable, secondary sources including The Atlantic, The Guardian, and The National Post. No comment on any issues with the article, except to say that they aren't issues for AfD and none seem significant enough that WP:TNT would be reasonable. Firefangledfeathers 06:12, 20 February 2022 (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.