Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sharon Labchuk (2nd nomination)
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. No arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:22, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sharon Labchuk[edit]
AfDs for this article:
- Sharon Labchuk (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non-notable politician who has not held office. West Eddy (talk) 20:34, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per pervious AfD. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sharon Labchuk Me-123567-Me (talk) 21:08, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - That's not a particularly compelling reason to keep. The previous AfD was in 2005 and of the 4 keep !votes there's only one actual argument that would fly today: "She had a decent result in the last election, and is running again. The election aside, she is notable. She's referenced no less than 31 times at the CBC's website with many quotes!" But just saying "per previous" is not sufficient. Shadowjams (talk) 21:42, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I disagree, but you're right she has given many CBC interviews and is notable that way alone. Me-123567-Me (talk) 21:44, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - That's not a particularly compelling reason to keep. The previous AfD was in 2005 and of the 4 keep !votes there's only one actual argument that would fly today: "She had a decent result in the last election, and is running again. The election aside, she is notable. She's referenced no less than 31 times at the CBC's website with many quotes!" But just saying "per previous" is not sufficient. Shadowjams (talk) 21:42, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment A google search for just the last year brought up significant results. Me-123567-Me (talk) 21:47, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Results from CBC's own search on its website. Me-123567-Me (talk) 21:49, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:41, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:41, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- It's not good enough to assert that she's gotten media coverage, if that coverage doesn't actually find its way into the actual article as actual references. Keep if the article is improved by close; redirect to the party if it isn't. Bearcat (talk) 03:24, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - whether or not every source has been included in the article, the sources clearly exist. Labchuk is clearly a prominent Green party leader and, since the last AfD, has received additional non-routine news coverage. Sionk (talk) 13:10, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Wikipedia evaluates the keepworthiness of an article by the presence or absence of sources in the article as it stands, not the presence or absence of sources in some future fantasy rewrite of the article that isn't the version that's in front of us. The sources clearly exist? Great, then add them to the article — because if they're not in the article, then they don't count for diddly. Bearcat (talk) 15:47, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- See WP:N - "Notability requires only the existence of suitable independent, reliable sources, not their immediate citation." Sionk (talk) 22:36, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- See WP:BLPPROD. An article about a living person can be deleted practically on sight if it doesn't have suitable sources in the article; there is no escape clause for "hey, there are sources out there so somebody might clean it up someday", if nobody's prepared to take the initiative to get that cleanup started immediately. The rules are much stricter and tighter for biographical articles about living people than they are for other unsourced or poorly sourced articles, precisely because a problematic BLP can actually have a negative impact on the life of a real human being — which is why a poor-quality article about a notable person can still be deleted or redirected if improvement isn't actually forthcoming, regardless of what other policies might say about whether articles need to be sourced or just sourceable. Bearcat (talk) 00:24, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- That applies to unsourced articles about living people. This article clearly has sources. If you want to continue the discussion about improving the article, do so on its Talk page. This isn't the place. Sionk (talk) 01:07, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. You're right that WP:BLPPROD probably isn't the right precedent here. But Bearcat is right that when it comes to WP:BLP that verifiability is paramount and you actually need the sources in the article in the first place to do that. That's why I'm !voting weak keep; the sources exists, someone just needs to add them. If no one takes the time to save the page then the right call probably is a delete. --NINTENDUDE64 04:32, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- That applies to unsourced articles about living people. This article clearly has sources. If you want to continue the discussion about improving the article, do so on its Talk page. This isn't the place. Sionk (talk) 01:07, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- See WP:BLPPROD. An article about a living person can be deleted practically on sight if it doesn't have suitable sources in the article; there is no escape clause for "hey, there are sources out there so somebody might clean it up someday", if nobody's prepared to take the initiative to get that cleanup started immediately. The rules are much stricter and tighter for biographical articles about living people than they are for other unsourced or poorly sourced articles, precisely because a problematic BLP can actually have a negative impact on the life of a real human being — which is why a poor-quality article about a notable person can still be deleted or redirected if improvement isn't actually forthcoming, regardless of what other policies might say about whether articles need to be sourced or just sourceable. Bearcat (talk) 00:24, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- See WP:N - "Notability requires only the existence of suitable independent, reliable sources, not their immediate citation." Sionk (talk) 22:36, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Wikipedia evaluates the keepworthiness of an article by the presence or absence of sources in the article as it stands, not the presence or absence of sources in some future fantasy rewrite of the article that isn't the version that's in front of us. The sources clearly exist? Great, then add them to the article — because if they're not in the article, then they don't count for diddly. Bearcat (talk) 15:47, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Keep. The sources exists, as anyone could see by clicking the search link. This page just needs to be saved. If nobody takes up the task, maybe her notability isn't so significant. --NINTENDUDE64 16:38, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Reluctant Keep The article needs work but the subject is notable enough to merit a separate article. DocTree (talk) 03:31, 10 May 2012 (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.