Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Maury Shapka

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 --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 23:40, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Maury Shapka

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

WP:BLP, resting entirely on primary sources that cannot confer notability, of a person notable only as the leader of a fringe political party and as a non-winning candidate for political office. These are not claims of notability that satisfy WP:NPOL, and no quality sourcing is present to fulfill WP:GNG. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 07:24, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk 11:18, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk 11:18, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk 11:18, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep under the policy of Ignore All Rules. I favor the lowest of barriers for inclusion of material about political parties, their youth sections, and their leaders without regards to size or ideology on the grounds that this is material that readers reasonably expect to be included in a comprehensive encyclopedia. As this subject was the head of the Natural Law Party in Alberta, a keep on those grounds. Carrite (talk) 15:50, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely being a political party leader is sufficient notability to support a properly sourced article — but for a minor or fringe party especially, it can't be (and isn't) an automatic inclusion freebie that constitutes an exemption from our actual sourcing requirements, or allows the person to keep an article that relies exclusively on primary sources and passing namechecks in election results tables. If there were even just a couple of properly reliable sources that were substantively about him here, I'd have let this go — but there are zero. Bearcat (talk) 17:56, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, clpo13_(talk) 17:11, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kharkiv07 (T) 02:23, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or you could do a re-direct to the party. Bondegezou (talk) 14:09, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 11:04, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and redirect, leader of a fringe party does not guarantee de facto notability, but a redirect would be suitable. --kelapstick^(bainuu) 02:46, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This person got under 300 votes and placed 6th in a run for a national office. The argument that we need this article to properly cover the natural law party makes no sense. That party is adequately covered by articles on that subject, and this article gives no light on the parties philosophy of goals, although it does give some evidence of its failure to generate a political base.John Pack Lambert (talk) 08:52, 23 December 2015 (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.