Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Terry Kilrea (2nd nomination)

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. → Call me Hahc21 03:09, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Terry Kilrea

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

While this article was kept in an earlier deletion discussion in 2006, Wikipedia's notability and sourcing rules were very different then than they are now — WP:BLP1E didn't exist yet, for example, and we were a lot more loosey-goosey at the time about actually requiring WP:RS to be directly cited in the article itself, and WP:POLITICIAN hadn't yet been codified as excluding unelected candidates for political office. Thus it's time for us to revisit whether the article actually meets current standards or not. The only substantive notability claims here are that he was a candidate for mayor in 2003, and ran again but then dropped out before election day in 2006; much of the article, further, is sourced (via offsite links inserted directly into body text, rather than via properly formatted references) to unrecoverable dead links and primary sources. In 2006, the argument that any "competitive" candidate in an election should be considered notable enough for a Wikipedia article, whether they actually won it or not, certainly still held some sway — but it doesn't anymore, and what we have eight years later is a poorly sourced BLP of a person who hasn't established genuinely encyclopedic notability for anything besides being an unelected candidate. Delete unless somebody can beef it up with a much stronger notability claim and better sourcing than this. Bearcat (talk) 19:54, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 19:59, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Doesn't meet WP:POLITICIAN. Papaursa (talk) 21:22, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:38, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:38, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:POLITICIAN, non-notable unelected candidate. - Ahunt (talk) 00:13, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:POLITICIAN and no other credible claim of notability is made. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:13, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable, unelected candidate.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:39, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - we have gotten much tougher here, so an article that would have been kept in 2006 might be deleted in 2014. The only real allegation of notability is as a perennial candidate; otherwise, I'd support a speedy deletion. 22:22, 2 April 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bearian (talk • contribs)

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.