Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tom Hengen
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 03:32, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Tom Hengen[edit]
Political hack from Saskatchewan. Never been elected and article fails to show notability. Suttungr 14:25, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Fails WP:BIO. A quick google search shows up no reliable hits for this subject. This subject also fails notability guidelines as well. --Siva1979Talk to me 14:51, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Hengen very nearly became the leader of a recognized provincial party in the mid-1990s, and has since been a candidate for federal office. Wikipedia has a strong precedent of keeping articles on leadership candidates. CJCurrie 03:36, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Wikipedia isn't a memorial. GreenJoe 03:51, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I understand the general point you're making, but I believe it's misapplied here. Hengen came very close to becoming the leader of the Liberal Party of Saskatchewan at a time when the party still had strong representation in the provincial legislature; he's not a public figure today, but he emphatically was in the mid-1990s. CJCurrie 04:00, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BIO. But he didn't become the leader, or get elected. The BIO criteria seem somewhat clear cut to me. --Bfigura (talk) 04:03, 2 September 2007 (UTC)See below[reply]- With respect, I disagree with this interpretation. I believe that Hengen fulfills the criteria for inclusion listed on WP:BIO, with reference to "Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage." Hengen received extensive press coverage in Saskatchewan (and fair coverage in the rest of Canada) throughout 1996 and 1997; the fact that the original articles aren't currently available online shouldn't be justification for deleting the piece. CJCurrie 04:20, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Point taken. He does seem to have enough coverage that's verifiable to meet WP:N. Bfigura (talk) 04:29, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- There is no evidence based on this article, that Hengen received significant press coverage. If these articles exist they should be listed as references. Also, just having a mention in the day-to-day news is insufficient according to WP:BIO. It needs to be in-depth coverage. Unless you can provide those references, I think this article should be deleted. Suttungr 12:25, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Point taken. He does seem to have enough coverage that's verifiable to meet WP:N. Bfigura (talk) 04:29, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- With respect, I disagree with this interpretation. I believe that Hengen fulfills the criteria for inclusion listed on WP:BIO, with reference to "Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage." Hengen received extensive press coverage in Saskatchewan (and fair coverage in the rest of Canada) throughout 1996 and 1997; the fact that the original articles aren't currently available online shouldn't be justification for deleting the piece. CJCurrie 04:20, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep vote change per CJCurrie. Bfigura (talk) 04:29, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Leadership candidates are notable. -- Earl Andrew - talk 05:13, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep As a former leadership candidate who was notable. Just because the sources are not online does not make him fail WP:BIO. Davewild 08:35, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Candidates for the leadership of a political party with representation in a state, provincial or national legislature should always be kept, IMO. Bearcat 21:05, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per several of the above arguments. Besides that, as a candidate for the Canadian House of Commons, his article shouldn't be deleted - if he's not found notable on other grounds, the information should be merged into Liberal Party candidates, 1997 Canadian federal election. Sarcasticidealist 09:56, 4 September 2007 (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.