Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/James Beddome

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. Consensus has clearly shifted in that direction, tracking improvement in the article. There is no reasonable prospect of a consensus for deletion at this point. BD2412 T 03:46, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

James Beddome[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:POLITICIAN. Has never been elected, lead a party that has never held a seat.--User19004 (talk) 02:36, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Kpg jhp jm 03:07, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Manitoba-related deletion discussions. Kpg jhp jm 03:07, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a never elected politician.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:19, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unelected candidate and leader of a small provincial party. LefcentrerightDiscuss 23:27, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Strictly speaking, the question of whether the party has ever held a seat in the legislature is not in and of itself controlling on whether the leader qualifies for an article or not — some minor or fringe parties have held one or two legislative seats in their day without making all of their leaders notable, and some minor party leaders get enough reliable source coverage to clear WP:GNG regardless of whether they technically passed or failed WP:NPOL on the letter of the law. But this article literally depends 50 per cent on primary sources that are not support for notability at all, and even the half that is real media still isn't all about James Beddome, so the article is not well-sourced enough to make him one of the latter. Bearcat (talk) 18:44, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets GNG with easily found references that are significant and primarily about the person. Such as CTV News, Global News, CBC News, Winnipeg Free Press. Even some of the references in the article meet GNG - such as this one from 2007 which means he's been getting significant coverage for over a decade! Article needs improving. Nfitz (talk) 05:44, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Please note nominator has been blocked for sockpuppetry and has done little but AFD articles since they created their account - all of which that I've carefully checked seem to be notable. Nfitz (talk) 21:12, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable 3rd party leader. KidAd (talk) 06:12, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand this comment. How is GNG not met, User:KidAd? And what has 3rd party leader got to do with anything - the third party is always notable. Though surely the Manitoba Green Party isn't the third party. Nfitz (talk) 09:04, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Whether or not NPOL is met (consensus would be no on this), the GNG aspect of this topic should be further discussed, per sources presented by Nfitz.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 03:38, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep while it is clear that he does not meet the categories in WP:POLITICIAN that would presume/guarantee notability, I believe he nonetheless meets WP:GNG. He has been the leader of the Green Party of Manitoba off and on for more than a decade, and received a lot of coverage in WP:RS both included here and not (as noted by Nfitz). While some of this coverage is "courtesy" election coverage, there is a lot of it over a long period of time. As he now works as a defence attorney there seems to also be more and more peripheral coverage of him in that context. Also given the increasing fortunes of the Greens federally, in BC (where they are in a supply and confidence agreement with the governing NDP), PEI (where they are the official opposition), Ontario and New Brunswick (where they have elected MPPs/MLAs) and in Vancouver and Burnaby where they have elected City Councillors, I am not sure it is a great idea for us to go around deleting articles about their provincial leaders, where there is a reasonable case to be made that they have reached GNG status.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 21:03, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

FWIIW, I have updated the article a bit, and added some citations over the last few days. It is also worth noting that Beddome is included in the infobox for the 2016 Manitoba general election because the Greens won 5.07% of the province-wide vote in that election. He is also included in the infobox for the next Manitoba election. For some reason, he was omitted from the infobox for the 2019 election, despite the fact that the party increased their support to 6.43% in the election last year. I have now added him to the infobox there, and started a discussion on the talk page there, since usually we include party leaders in those boxes if they receive >5%.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 18:53, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 21:45, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I have also listed this on Wikipedia:Canadian Wikipedians' notice board as suggested on the Canadian portal.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 21:45, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the sources presented here seem to be mostly interviews. Delete per Bearcat. SportingFlyer T·C 16:39, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Darryl Kerrigan seems to have improved the article enough to make it pass GNG in my opinion. -- Earl Andrew - talk 19:30, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Per WP:HEY. Meets GNG with WP:SIGCOV pieces in good RS here, and here, and here; plus others. Britishfinance (talk) 17:23, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Seems to have been improved enough to lean towards keep. Hopefully another week of discussion will make that consensus clearer.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:43, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. In addition to the above, another SIGCOV full interview piece on CTV News here, and (another) interview on CBC News here. Britishfinance (talk) 10:31, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Meets GNG as per Britishfinance's, Darryl Kerrigan's, and Nfitz's arguments. Samsmachado (talk) 04:20, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per existing sources. When you pile up this many interviews, the "interviews don't count for notability" argument looks pretty thin. — Toughpigs (talk) 04:27, 26 June 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.