Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Victor Lau


 * 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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:36, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Victor Lau

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

Does not meet the criteria for WP:POLITICIAN. No significant coverage in the media of Lau himself. West Eddy (talk) 10:41, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep Leader of a registered political party. Me-123567-Me (talk) 15:22, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Also falls under WP:OUTCOMES. Me-123567-Me (talk) 15:32, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment: Possible conflict of interest: Me-123567-Me has identified as a Green Party supporter on his/her user page. West Eddy (talk) 05:51, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
 * The user might also be a male like the subject of this article, possibly be Canadian, and could well also like italian salad dressing just like the subject of this article. Unless there is a financial relationship between the editor and the party, this is not worthy of being mentioned. We don't call "Conflict of Interest — he's a Democrat!" or "Conflict of Interest — she's a Conservative!" as a means of discrediting arguments in this forum. This is an examination of whether an article topic is the subject meets the General Notability Guideline, being the subject of multiple, substantial, independent, published pieces of coverage in so-called "reliable sources" — or whether it meets some sort of alternate, specialized set of criteria, in this case WP:POLITICIAN. Carrite (talk) 15:12, 2 May 2012 (UTC)


 * You see, Conflict of Interest cuts both ways. If you're NOT a member of the Green Party and are trying to have a Green Party bio deleted, that is also technically a conflict of interest if you think about it. Instead, we just ASSUME GOOD FAITH and debate the articles, not the editors. Carrite (talk) 15:14, 2 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions.  PK  T (alk)  17:31, 25 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep, notable under WP:POLITICIAN. The Green Party of Saskatchewan clearly isn't a minor party with running full slates in elections. 117Avenue (talk) 03:39, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 02:19, 27 April 2012 (UTC)


 * There seems to be a rather deep misunderstanding of what WP:OUTCOMES actually means, so I thought I should attempt to clarify: it does not mean that every leader of a political party must necessarily get their own independent article, regardless of the actual quality of the article that actually gets written — rather, it means that any leader of a political party is a valid potential topic for an article, if and only if that article actually conforms to Wikipedia's content policies such as WP:N and WP:RS. AFD consensus, in fact, has always been that an article about a political party leader can still be redirected to the article on the party, or deleted outright, if it is unsourced, poorly sourced and/or doesn't really say anything substantial about the person besides the fact that they exist. Most of the party leaders who've been nominated in the past few days have articles that rely on primary sources like the party's own web page and/or trivial media mentions that fail the notability requirement of substantial coverage — meaning that the articles are not keepable in their current forms. Which is why I pretty consistently cast a conditional "keep if the article is improved, but redirect if it isn't" vote: a party leader is always a valid potential topic for a properly written and properly sourced article, but is not entitled to keep an unsourced or poorly sourced stub just because they led a political party. This one at least cites a couple of real media articles in which Victor Lau himself is actually a main subject of the article (even being directly mentioned in the title), which certainly puts it ahead of most of the others — but it's still a barebones stub which says almost nothing about Lau besides the fact that he was a political party leader, so improvements to provide more substantial detail and more substantial sources are still quite sorely needed. Accordingly, as usual: keep if the article can be improved, redirect to the party if it can't. Bearcat (talk) 18:10, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:06, 2 May 2012 (UTC)




 * Keep - I support the retention of articles on political parties, their youth sections, and their leaders regardless of ideology. This is the sort of information that should be in encyclopedias. This is the leader of a provincial Canadian political party, ergo from my perspective should be retained. Carrite (talk) 15:16, 2 May 2012 (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.