Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Frank Coleman (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 keep. (non-admin closure) --Mdann52talk to me! 07:24, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Frank Coleman (politician)[edit]

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

A bit of a tricky situation here, so I thought it best to test for consensus on what to do. The situation is that earlier this year, Coleman was acclaimed as the winner of the Progressive Conservative Party of Newfoundland and Labrador leadership election, 2014 due to a lack of other declared candidates, and was thus slated to officially assume office as Premier of Newfoundland and Labrador soon — and thus an article was created on that basis. However, earlier today he withdrew, with the result that he will not be taking office, and the leadership race is now back on. For our purposes here, what this means is that he technically no longer has a real claim of notability that would pass WP:POLITICIAN — and our usual practice for non-winning candidates in political leadership conventions is to give them only brief coverage in the article on the convention itself, rather than a full standalone WP:BLP, if they don't have any other substantive claim of notability besides the candidacy. (The fact that he technically did win the convention at first isn't a substantive claim of notability, either, since he didn't actually accede to the actual leadership.) Accordingly, my own preference would be to redirect to Progressive Conservative Party of Newfoundland and Labrador leadership election, 2014 — I don't believe that we need to retain a full standalone BLP, as a redirect to the election itself should be more than sufficient to serve our readers and provide what relatively little information we and they actually need about him anymore. However, there may be valid arguments to consider that it should be kept or deleted instead, so I wanted to test for consensus rather than redirecting it arbitrarily. Bearcat (talk) 21:15, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 21:22, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 21:25, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect: If the subject was not "notable" by Wikipedia standards before or during the leadership race, only after being acclaimed the winner, than I would also say redirect to the leadership race article. Any info relevant to Coleman and the leadership race would probably be better served in that article as it's really his only claim of notability. Cmr08 (talk) 23:00, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm striking my comments directly above as I may have been too quick in declaring this Coleman's only claim of notability. After further research, it's obvious to me that he does have some notability besides his political candidacy, but weather or not that is enough notability to warrant an article, I don't really know. It's kind of a confusing situation because I think there are good arguments on both sides of this issue, so I no longer want my "redirection" vote considered in the final decision. Cmr08 (talk) 08:45, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:GNG. We have ample coverage of his life before seeking office (even though the coverage of it largely came after). Being acclaimed at this level is noteworthy. We have a lot more content to create a good bio article than we do for most MHA's who are auto-kept. Redirecting to another article is inappropriate, because there's lots to say about him that doesn't belong anywhere else. --Rob (talk) 00:05, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Use your imagination for a moment, to step five or ten years into the future. It's now 2024. Does anybody actually need to know anything substantive about Coleman anymore, considering that he's a WP:BLP1E who never actually assumed any public office that would make him of sustained encyclopedic interest to anyone? Bearcat (talk) 04:43, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If "needing" information was a criterion, than we'd delete 99.99% of what we have. What counts is that we have multiple independent (third party) reliable sources providing substantive information about him, that goes well beyond the mere fact he was an almost-premier. It's a huge mistake to lump Coleman in with the run-of-the-mill failed political candidate, where all the coverage of them was about the election, and there's little if any, bio information about them beyond candidate supplied mini-bios that media often publish. Coleman is a notable business man. Atlantic Business Magazine awarded him CEO of the Year for Atlantic Canada in 2010 (well before he had any political inkling). There was a writeup about Coleman Group of Companies; see Lopez-Pacheco (February 7, 2007). "A small company that has big ideas". National Post. p. SR4.. Using Proquest (through my local library), I find at least 14 articles mention both him and "Coleman Group" in the period before 2013 (no political angle). Unfortunately, in almost all cases, I can't read the full articles without going to the library. They seem to be about different deals he had, or use him for a noteworthy businessman's opinion on something. If he had never sought public office, we could have justified on article on him and/or Coleman Group (and could have one redirect to the other). Letting anybody who runs for office get an article, means literally anybody who's 18+ could get an article. But not everybody is a notable business leader. Coleman was not a random anonymous person who decided they wanted to be premier one day. Unfortunately, the Google is bias towards recentism, and gives the false impression that nobody heard of him, until he was a candidate for premeir. In fact, he was a notable person before. --Rob (talk) 05:44, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If we deem premier-designate a notable position, people will want to know who he was. 117Avenue (talk) 06:02, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure if I agree with keeping the page or not, but I figured I would still give my input. The events surrounding Coleman I would say have been notable and it is not like this was just a story covered in NL, it got a fair bit of national coverage too. As well from what I've been seeing from political watchers and pundits, mainly through twitter, is that this appears to be the first time that someone who was going to be sworn in as a premier has quit. Newfoundlander&Labradorian (talk) 00:39, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:00, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The content of the bio does not justify notability given he did not achieve premiership. (I am not a Newfoundlander) Canuckle (talk) 02:14, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Would you agree there are multiple independent sources providing substantial coverage of him? --Rob (talk) 02:25, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The second sentence of WP:POLITICIAN#1, together with WP:NOTTEMPORARY, means that should a person be elected to a notable office, but fails to take the office, keeps his article. 117Avenue (talk) 04:00, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think you might want to ponder the meaning and implication of the word "yet" in WP:POLITICIAN #1. Bearcat (talk) 04:40, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I believe it means "has not", your comment suggests you believe it is the alternative, "will". Writing an article about someone who will become notable in the future requires a crystal ball. 117Avenue (talk) 06:02, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Nothing notable for this person than any other business person. If we choose to keep this one than others who have tossed their hat in the ring in this leadership race and all other leadership races would also require an article in Wikipedia. HJKeats (talk) 23:25, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Not every businessman was president of "Atlantic Canada’s largest, family-owned independent grocery retailer."[1] or was "named Atlantic Canada’s CEO of the year by Atlantic Business Magazine in 2010."[2]. --Rob (talk) 00:13, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not everyone who tosses their hat in the ring is declared elected, a requirement for politician notability. 117Avenue (talk) 05:13, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Passes GNG. Our Special Guidelines for Politicians are crafted to prevent an endless stream of spammy campaign bios for every pol in every race worldwide; and to prevent self-serving bios of minor local pols in low level political posts. This is not a city council member from Pineapple Bluff, Arkansas here, this is a person who was designated a provincial premier and who stepped down before assuming the post. He remains a historical figure for that region of Canada and easily passes GNG; he should not be subjected to some artificial high bar which we have used by consensus to curb spam. Carrite (talk) 18:17, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, and redirect really just a 1EVENT BLP, yes he had a life, but is still 1EVENT. --Bejnar (talk) 16:51, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- When you say "he had a life", you're missing the point that there are multiple substantial independent sources covering that life, which satisfy WP:GNG. If he hadn't have sought office, there would be little dispute in having an article on him. So, far I haven't heard anybody dispute that he meets WP:GNG. --Rob (talk) 17:56, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This is a tough one because of the unusual circumstance of his resignation before taking office. This does, on the face of it make him notable for one only event. However, counterbalancing that is that he was elected/acclaimed as the leader of a major political party. Coverage about him prior to his foray into politics is much sparser, but not non-noexistent (for example: [3]). Coverage of the leadership race, and especially the surprise resignation was significant and was not limited to local coverage. Based on the preceding reasons, I am recommending keep. At the very least, a redirect to Progressive Conservative Party of Newfoundland and Labrador leadership election, 2014 would make sense. -- Whpq (talk) 20:49, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There is enough coverage to pass GNG. Also, people who become actually designated to take an office should generally be treated as notable if the office confers such, this is a lot different than candidates who failed.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:56, 26 June 2014 (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.