Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Paul Leduc (Quebec politician)

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. Kurykh (talk) 06:29, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Leduc (Quebec politician)[edit]

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

WP:BLP of a person notable primarily as a mayor. While the city is large enough that he would be able to keep an article that was properly sourced to media coverage about his term as mayor, it's not large enough to earn him a presumption of notability on the basis of sourcing as weak as what we have here: one primary source profile on the city's own website, and one (deadlinked) raw table of the election results themselves. And even on a Google News search, all I can find is one WP:BLP1E blip about him accusing another politician of defamation, and a bunch of glancing namechecks of his existence in coverage of other things and people otherwise. This simply isn't enough to satisfy a notability criterion for which success or failure hinges on clearing WP:GNG on the sourceability. Bearcat (talk) 20:55, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 21:08, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Quebec-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 21:08, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kostas20142 (talk) 15:51, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. In June 2016 the CBC reported, "The City of Brossard has faced intense media scrutiny lately", citing some controversies in Leduc's administration. [1] At present he seems to be in the middle of continuing controversy about the city's plastic bag ban, with Leduc in the crosshairs of attacks by the Retail Council of Canada and the plastic bag industry ("the Mayor of Brossard, Mr. Paul Leduc, persisted in his obstinacy and refusal to have any discussion with stakeholders and adopted a bylaw prohibiting the distribution of plastic shopping bags."[2]; "The Mayor of Brossard Knows Best? Paul Leduc Ignores Facts, Pushes His Political Agenda"[3]), but in the independent news coverage about this issue I didn't find much that focuses on Leduc. As things stand, the case for notability strikes me as marginal, but I wouldn't be surprised if someone else can turn up more, especially if they can make a more effective search for French-language sources than I was able to do. --Arxiloxos (talk) 17:07, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as the article can't be improved if not there. Hyperbolick (talk) 17:33, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's not a reason for an article to be kept in and of itself — it has to be proven that improvement is definitively possible on the basis of hard proof that the necessary depth of sourcing to meet GNG unconditionally exists beyond a shadow of a doubt. It is not enough to just assert that improvement could eventually become possible maybe who knows anything could happen someday yadda yadda — you've got to show that improvability is already a foregone conclusion today, because a significant number of viable sources already exists today. Bearcat (talk) 01:57, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Small town mayor with minor/routine coverage. Fails WP:POLITICIAN. I've looked at the sources mentioned above and searched. If better sources are found I will reconsider. Gab4gab (talk) 15:09, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not enough coverage of him and not a significant enough position to justify an article. Media coverage on actions of the city of Brossard should lead to more information in the article on Brossard.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:01, 30 April 2017 (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.