Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Miguel Figueroa

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. Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 13:49, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Miguel Figueroa

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

Does not meet WP:POLITICIAN. West Eddy (talk) 22:51, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Add citations and keep or redirect to Communist Party of Canada. Me-123567-Me (talk) 01:31, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 23:16, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 23:16, 27 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) 04:17, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This article was created in 2007 and is grandfathered in under the old BLP policy, unless I am mistaken. Carrite (talk) 00:45, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Which means it can't be prodded for being an unsourced or poorly sourced BLP. That doesn't mean it can't still be subjected to a full AFD for being an unsourced or poorly sourced BLP. Bearcat (talk) 00:43, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:04, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:55, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:56, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:28, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Leader of the Communist party of Canada. One of the historically most important minor parties. I accept that the leader of a subnational unit of a party is possibly not notable if that's the major accomplishment, but this ia a national leadership. The sourcing is adequate. And there is no " 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" , There is a requirement that BLPs have a RS, which I interpret as a sufficiently RS to provide WP:V for at least some of the key claims WP:BLPPROD. Such is present, and whether we think it sufficient for notability is a matter of our own judgment. The question of notability is whatever we decide here. Bearcat, provide some evidence for your statement please--I cannot find the phrase "sourced to the hilt" on any WP policy page, or anywhere in WP except your own repeated unsourced assertions at AfDs . DGG ( talk ) 01:51, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Er, last I checked people were allowed to paraphrase policy in an argument, and were not restricted to quoting it verbatim — so the fact that you can't specifically find the exact phrase "sourced to the hilt" in a policy document is irrelevant. The fact is that our notability policy quite explicitly requires that the article topic has been the subject of substantial coverage in reliable sources; almost every one of the minor politicians that have been discussed here has an article which quite explicitly fails one or both of those two criteria. And further, I've voted an unqualified keep in every single case where the article had sufficient sourcing in valid sources — and even in the ones where the sourcing wasn't up to scratch, I've still been quite clear that a political party leader's article is eligible to be kept if it gets improved with sufficient coverage in reliable sources. While the ability to point to one article in one reliable source might certainly be sufficient to make an article ineligible for speedy, cursory coverage and/or unreliable sources do not confer sufficient notability to necessarily pass a full AFD if nobody's willing to take the time to spruce it up to a properly keepable standard. So I'll thank you kindly to stop misrepresenting my position.

And just for the record, the sourcing here is not adequate. All three of the cited references, in fact, were dead links which couldn't be salvaged, because they were bare URLs without complete reference information — which means that all three of them had to be removed and the article now contains no properly verifiable sourcing at all (except for one magazine article that's inappropriately placed as a direct external link instead of a proper reference, and which certainly verifies a few basic facts but fails to support most of this article's content at all.) Bearcat (talk) 00:46, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per User:DGG, but I note that although the phrase "sourced to the hilt" is not necessary, neither of your interpretations of the rules are entirely correct here. DGG, yours is only an omission: you left out that any potentially controversial assertions must be sourced or removed. - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 17:41, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I believe that articles on political parties, their youth sections, and their leaders should be retained regardless of size or ideology. This is information which should be in a good encyclopedia. The CPC has been around since something like 1922, by the way... Carrite (talk) 00:43, 11 May 2012 (UTC) Last edit: Carrite (talk) 00:46, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - There is way too much unsourced talk about infighting between members within this political party and other communist parties and it is repeated elsewhere(see George Hewison, William Kashtan). So much of it sounds like WP:BLPGOSSIP that I would worry about WP:LIBEL. Maybe these guys really don't care about airing their dirty laundry but I seriously wonder if this isn't some Wikipedia:COATRACK to discredit them and their parties. --Joshuaism (talk) 04:40, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Here's a source:

How the Communist Party changed Canadian elections forever, This Magazine - includes a profile of Figueroa.

—Northamerica1000^(talk) 13:29, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That link is already in the article as a direct external link, and I've already noted in this very discussion the reasons why it's not good enough to be the article's only source citation — just to reiterate, it's certainly better than nothing at all, but it doesn't properly support large chunks of our article's actual content. Bearcat (talk) 05:31, 15 May 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.