Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rolf Dinsdale

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 Walter_Dinsdale#Personal_Life.. Based upon the reading of policies I think the redirect is the proper course. The article can be recreated should his notability increase in the future. JodyB_talk 05:21, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Rolf Dinsdale[edit]

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

Yet another case where someone jumped the gun by creating an article about an unelected candidate in a local election. It dances right on the edge of being a campaign brochure, including analysis of his positions and a subjective quote about his opinion of Justin Trudeau, and completely fails to provide any real demonstration that he actually gets past another notability guideline to counterbalance his failure to pass WP:POLITICIAN. Following which, as is so often the case, he didn't win the election in the end, and thus continues to fail WP:POLITICIAN. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 06:09, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 06:15, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Walter_Dinsdale#Personal_Life. If he were a.n.other candidate in a local election, I'd probably support deletion. However, the election which Rolf Dinsdale stood in was a federal one, not a local one and he nearly won, coming within 400 votes of victory in a seat previously held by his father. So, while that doesn't merit a standalone article, it does mean that he's a plausible search term. WP:POLITICIAN says: "In the case of candidates for political office who do not meet this guideline, the general rule is to redirect to an appropriate page covering the election or political office sought in lieu of deletion. Relevant material from the biographical article can be merged into the election or political office page if appropriate." I believe in this case, brief mentions in context in the father's article would be more appropriate than deletion or a simple redirect to the election article, redirects being cheap. Valenciano (talk) 09:04, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as above. Not independently notable. It might be ok to merge a bit of this article, but most of it is trivia (e.g. Shit From Hell isn't a notable band, and we don't need the lengthy quotes). --Colapeninsula (talk) 14:57, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. It is my opinion that the page should be kept, and edited if need be. Dinsdale was a candidate for a major Canadian political party, in a federal by-election, and almost won. As to the point that I jumped the gun in creating the page, it should be pointed out that Dinsdale was leading in many pre-election polls, in a Conservative party stronghold. As for the section discussing his positions, I always find it helpful to have some indication of a political candidate's views on several matters. The quote, however, does seem unhelpful in hindsight, so I apologise for that. Also, I'm not entirely sure it's that appropriate to state "following which, as is so often the case, he didn't win the election in the end, and thus continues to fail." Thanks.NHCLS (talk) 22:49, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Leading in the polls during an election campaign" does not in and of itself make a person notable enough for a Wikipedia article, and what happened to Dinsdale is exactly the reason why that's the case: he led all the polls, but still lost — because the voters who actually showed up to actually mark actual ballots turned out not to be a representative sample of what the poll respondents were saying. (There is a reason politicians say "the only poll that matters is the one on election day".) Either way, the rule about politicians on Wikipedia is that if you can't make a credible case that a person was already notable enough to have a Wikipedia article before they became a candidate in an election, then the mere fact of running in an election doesn't make them any more notable than they were before — with extremely rare exceptions they have to win the election, not just run in it, to pass WP:POLITICIAN. Bearcat (talk) 06:00, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Also, you're misquoting me. I didn't say that "he continues to fail", period, end of sentence; I said that "he continues to fail WP:POLITICIAN". Sure, it would have been inappropriate commentary if I'd ended the sentence where you quoted me as ending it — but I didn't. It wasn't a comment on his basic worth as a human being; it was a comment on his lack of meeting a specific Wikipedia inclusion rule. Bearcat (talk) 06:12, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Really sorry. I don't see how I misread that; I think I was just pretty frustrated that this article, which I think should be kept, was probably going to be deleted as well as the wording of the statement, in my opinion, made me sound like a Liberal Party of Canada tool. On the issue of his not winning, I agree that you have a very valid point, however, he does seem to have done a lot of work with Facebook in Canada, which might be grounds for keeping the article. However, if the article is deleted, I do not believe it should be changed to a redirect, just outright deleted. Once again, sorry about the misquote. Thanks.NHCLS (talk) 21:51, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Manitoba-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:51, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:51, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:51, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:52, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unsure - (1) He clearly fails WP:POLITICIAN and WP:OUTCOMES for that part. (2) He might just pass WP:MUSICBIO for having played in a notable punk rock band (I'm typing at work, so don't ask me the name of the band.) Bearian (talk) 22:10, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In terms of WP:OUTCOMES, that does say: "Unelected candidates for a national legislature or other national office are not viewed as having inherent notability and are often deleted or merged into long lists of campaign hopefuls, such as New Democratic Party candidates, 2004 Canadian federal election, or into articles detailing the specific race in question" (emphasis mine.) If this person was a nobody whose only claims to notability were standing and losing, who bombed badly in a general election, deletion would be clear. However here we have someone who stood in a by-election (special election) and very nearly won, someone who is the son of the former longstanding representative for that district, someone who plays in a punk band of borderline notability and who got a bit of press coverage, albeit related to the election. I've had a look and I quite agree with the nominator that that coverage is insufficient to pass WP:POLITICIAN, but this is one of the clearest cases for a redirect that I've seen, given the other circumstances, as content which people who come here may well search and could be preserved as a brief, sourced line or two in either the by-election article or the father's article. (Suggest the latter.) Valenciano (talk) 22:55, 3 December 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, SarahStierch (talk) 23:42, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meet WP:GNG. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:44, 11 December 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.