Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jack MacDougall

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. Dipankan ^{(Have a chat?)} 06:47, 6 May 2012 (UTC) (non-admin closure)[reply]

Jack MacDougall

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

Non-notable, unelected politician without significant media coverage. West Eddy (talk) 20:31, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:OUTCOMES#People. Me-123567-Me (talk) 21:09, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep former leader of a provincial political party, who led a party in an election and participated in the leaders' debate[1]. Long standing consensus to keep less notable leaders of political parties. - Jord (talk) 00:28, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That source's entire content about MacDougall is Green Party Leader Jack MacDougall had both Graham and Alward in his rhetorical sights. “You both sound the same. That is the trouble,” MacDougall said. “They are one and the same. You [voters] are being sold snake oil. What you are leaving to our children is unconscionable.” Substantial coverage #FAIL. Bearcat (talk) 06:17, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:39, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:39, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Any past consensus to "keep all leaders of political parties" has long since been overridden by Wikipedia's core requirement that biographies of living persons need to be sourced to the hilt or get canned; there is no "somebody might improve it someday" exemption for BLPs anymore. Keep if the article is improved by close; redirect to the party if it isn't. Notability is a question of the quality of sources that are or aren't present in the article, not a question of blanket "all X are notable" proclamations — if the sources aren't there, then an article does not get to stay. Bearcat (talk) 03:27, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, participation in the leaders debate makes him notable. 117Avenue (talk) 05:19, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not if the only cited source for it perfunctorily acknowledges his existence while actually being overwhelmingly about Shawn Graham and David Alward and Roger Duguay, it doesn't. There's a huge difference between demonstration of notability and mere confirmation of existence — the latter is not sufficient for our needs here, especially in a BLP. Bearcat (talk) 06:19, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Political parties and politicians in Canada#Development of a policy for minor party inclusion in infoboxes? 117Avenue (talk) 06:56, 30 April 2012 (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.