Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Burke (Canadian politician)

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. Missvain (talk) 01:19, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

David Burke (Canadian politician)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not meet WP:POLITICIAN.--NL19931993 (talk) 00:00, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:31, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:31, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as meeting WP:GNG based on the sources. No indication nom did a before on any of the people they AFD'd. ミラ P 00:32, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Regardless of whether they held a seat in the legislature or not, party leaders are kept if they clear WP:GNG on the sources — and even if they don't, they still retain redirects to whatever title the party's list of leaders is kept at (whether that's a standalone list or the party's main article) and are never deleted outright. They are information that people are looking for — so regardless of whether it's an article or a redirect, we always keep something for a political party leader. Bearcat (talk) 03:57, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Failed candidate and a term as head of a province-level political party. Fails WP:POLITICIAN.NotButtigieg (talk) 17:26, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's not how it works. Party leaders are kept if they clear GNG, and are redirected to the party if they don't, and may never be deleted outright unless their leadership of the party proves completely unverifiable. Bearcat (talk) 19:28, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment As a community, we've moved away from keeping state and provincial party leaders WP:POLOUTCOMES (see the AfD for Tom Morressey, who was chair of the Arizona Republican Party and related discussion on the Common Outcomes talk page). --Enos733 (talk) 05:35, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, we've moved away from handing political party leaders an automatic inclusion freebie just because they exist, in the absence of a properly sourceable pass of WP:GNG — but political party leaders are kept if they do pass GNG, and are retained as redirects to wherever we're keeping the list of the party leaders if they don't. And being the organizational chair of a political party is not the same thing as being the leader of a political party, either — the leader is the person who would be the premier (or majority leader) if the party actually won an election while the chair is just the person who runs the backroom operations, so they're not the same role and don't have the same public profile. Bearcat (talk) 18:36, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 03:15, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bearcat, I can see the distinction you are making - that the leader of a party in a parliamentary system could theoretically become prime minister and should be kept while a chair of a political party in the United States plays more of an organizational role. However, I am not sure this distinction makes a difference. I am not opposed to a sourcable pass of GNG, or even a redirect, but I don't think policy or practice that all party leaders are (or should be) automatically kept as redirects either. --Enos733 (talk) 06:34, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not exactly. For one thing, political parties in parliamentary systems still have organizational chairs who are separate people from the public leader — which illustrates the distinction much more effectively than wrongly implying that "organizational chair" is a uniquely USian thing does. And for another, I didn't say he has to be kept because he was a party leader — I said he has to be kept because the article clearly demonstrates that he passes GNG on the sourcing. Bearcat (talk) 16:56, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Honestly, as an interim leader of a party in a small province, looking at the sources, I don't think he passes WP:GNG. I disagree with the notion provincial/state political party leaders are automatically kept - though it varies by country, many of these leaders aren't inherently notable and only get a smattering of coverage. Mr. Burke seems to prove that point well, especially because he's only interim. SportingFlyer T·C 04:48, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody said that provincial or state political party leaders are automatically kept — what I said was that they are kept if they can be shown to clear GNG, and that they are redirected to wherever we're keeping the list of the party's leaders if they can't. Thing is, they are plausible to likely enough search terms that we do have a responsibility to make sure that a reader who searches for them ends up somewhere relevant — so if we can't get them over GNG on the sourcing, then a redirect to the list of leaders is necessary per WP:ATD. You're free to have a different opinion on whether the sources get him over GNG or not — but I'd ask that you not misquote me in the process in order to argue with a strawman that isn't what I actually said. Bearcat (talk) 17:56, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Look, I don't think redirecting this is proper, or that there's a rule that says we have to redirect these. The name is very common (even searching with the "Canada"), he served in an interim capacity of a party in a small state, and didn't get much coverage. SportingFlyer T·C 23:59, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

SportingFlyer and Bearcat, both of you make excellent points. I usually like to redirect these sort of things where notability may well exist but we can't prove it, so what I often look to is how substantive the article is. If it's more than a few sentences (to preserve attribution history and make article restoration easier), then I will !vote "redirect" and, if not (i.e., it's not something any editor could re-create in 5-10 minutes), then I will !vote "delete." In this case, we have an ultra short stub-class article that any editor could re-create in that time span, so that's why I favour "delete." Plus, WP:REDLINK applies, I think, to encourage article creation, right? Doug Mehus T·C 00:13, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment the nominator of this article has been banned as a sock puppet account, so user Miraclepine (an involved non-admin) closed this as a speedy keep - I considered immediately renominating the article at a fresh AfD, but noticed speedy keep as inapplicable per WP:SK #4 when substantive comments were made in good faith, which is clearly the case here, so I've gone ahead and reverted and reopened the AfD, even though I'm not an administrator either - I thought being bold in this situation would be significantly easier than DRV or another AfD. I don't think I'm wrong or else I wouldn't have done this, but I won't kick up a fuss if someone not involved closes this at this point, even as a speedy. Also, the closer should discount the nominator's statement/!vote when closing. Cheers. SportingFlyer T·C 23:48, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per SportingFlyer. I'm not seeing any reliable, independent sources, having reviewed all of the Google web and news search results and most of the book search results, which cover this subject in a significant way so I'm not sure WP:GNG is met. Of course, it's possible offline sources exist, but we can't just say those sources are "likely" to exist. Moreover, there's nothing in this stub-class article that couldn't be easily re-created. So, similar to Bearcat's rationale in this AfD deletion discussion for James H. Stuart, this deletion should be without prejudice to someone with access to local library sources (i.e., newspaper articles on microfilm/microfiche) re-creating it and trying again. Doug Mehus T·C 02:48, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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.