Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Bertschi

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 redirect to Liberal Party of Canada leadership election, 2013. Mark Arsten (talk) 12:48, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

David Bertschi[edit]

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

Non-notable candidate for 2013 Federal Liberal Party race. No other notable characteristics. Recommend merge/redirect to Liberal Party of Canada leadership election, 2013 Suttungr (talk) 17:32, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:20, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:20, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Theopolisme (talk) 00:09, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As I noted in a couple of comparable recent AFDs (George Takach and Martin Singh), while many years ago there was a consensus that being a candidate in a political party's leadership race was a valid claim of notability in and of itself, since then our WP:BLP rules have been tightened up a lot — so under current WP:BLP1E rules, a person cannot be considered a valid topic for a standalone article if that's the only substantial notability claim that can be made, and a brief biographical sketch in the article on the race itself is all that can be justified. Redirect per nom. Bearcat (talk) 21:07, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete In general candidates who lose are nota notable. The catch is in too many cases we have only recent even winners of these positions with articles. If we kept articles like this we would make Wikipedia even more presentist.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:14, 20 August 2013 (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.