Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mackenzie Thomason

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. – Joe (talk) 11:57, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mackenzie Thomason

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

WP:BLP of a politician, notable only for having been the interim leader of a minor political party without legislative representation. As always, this is not an automatic notability guarantee under WP:NPOL. There are also minimal WP:RS which do not seem to amount to WP:GNG. What coverage does exist seems to be WP:ROUTINE. Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 21:26, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 21:32, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 21:32, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - sufficiently sourced including non-trivial profiles in the National Post (a national newspaper) as well as CBC News. Therefore passes GNG as there is "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Sowny (talk) 00:41, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Two pieces of WP:ROUTINE coverage does not make "significant coverage", nor WP:N.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk)

According to WP:ROUTINE, "announcements, sports, speculative coverage, and tabloid journalism are not sufficient basis for an article." The sources used in the article go far beyond that. Sowny (talk) 16:13, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Sowny. Though they are basically irrelevant, the NB NDP is still treated as a major party in the media. Thomason was included in the leaders debates, for instance. -- Earl Andrew - talk 03:45, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

His attendance at a leaders debate is a valid consideration, but not on its own determinative of WP:N, particularly in the absence of significant coverage that could establish WP:GNG.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk)

According to WP:GNG "'Significant coverage' addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material." If you look at a number of the sources cited, that standard has been met. For instance:here, here, and here. Sowny (talk) 16:16, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets GNG. Significant amount of material has been added to the article since the nomination, sources that feature substantial coverage, and for which WP:ROUTINE doesn't apply. The only case for removing the article seems to be that he is "only an interim leader". While technically correct, the statement is also misleading as presented here when he was at the helm of such political party during a recent election. Either way, we base notability not on achievement or title, but on significant sourcing, of which Sowny has added many examples to the article page. Acebulf (talk) 17:41, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Sowny. — Kawnhr (talk) 18:52, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I gree with Sowny. User:Rushtheeditor (talk) 17:51, 23 September 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.