Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stephen Canning (2nd nomination)

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 delete. After evaluating the consensus here, it appears that the subject does not meet the relevant notability guidelines. NW (Talk) 03:26, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen Canning[edit]

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

Notability. This is no black-and-white case, but it is my suggestion that no single achievement (yet) of Stephen's accrues suitable notability, and that in examining the general notability, we find that sustained coverage is present in local sources, but not in national ones. Whilst the GNG makes no direct mention of a "national" source, I believe it is in the spirit of both the GNG and specific guidelines (WP:POLITICIAN in this case) to limit notability to people near the top of their field. Taking the subject's most easily assessed achievement (Chairman of a Con.Fut. group), I find that there are many such groups and therefore they are not "province-wide" or similar. In fact, the bar set by WP:POLITICIAN is higher than Stephen's level. - Jarry1250 ^{[Humorous? Discuss.]} 08:17, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As a local council candidate, falls well below the standard of WP:POLITICIAN. The coverage of this guy is nowhere near sufficient enough to pass the WP:GNG. The news source cited is plainly unreliable; reliable news sources do not give one-sided coverage of candidates plus a gratuitous link to the candidate's blog [1]. It is critical to uphold the reliable sources part of the GNG because without reliable sources we have unreliable articles. --Mkativerata (talk) 18:14, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The position as the youngest permanent advisor to the Home Secretary which remains notable in two aspects - one being the position of an advisor is notable in itself the second being the achievement of youngest advisor is also notable. These days the extra-Parliamentary coalition of conservative groups is becoming more important in preparing the Tory Party for government, much as happened in the 1970s. The YBF is a part of this and as such the people behind it are of note. I also direct you to the Wikipedia Bio guidelines for politcians in which point number two states "Just being an elected local official, or an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability, although such people can still be notable if they meet the primary notability criterionof "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject of the article." In this case the subject is an unelected candidate of office and has significant coverage in reliable and independent sources. In this case we can clearly say that there is significant coverage to satisfy the Wikipedia General notability Guideline that "Significant coverage means that sources address the subject directly in detail, and no original research is needed to extract the content. -- Swbcanning (talk) 13:39, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:29, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:29, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Local political activist who fails WP:POLITICIAN. Mentions in the local party newsletter do not get you notability in the Wikipedia sense. Ray^Talk 00:52, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:31, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep per Swbcanning. Although it's certainly on the line... Outback the koala (talk) 07:44, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete in mainspace; possibly convert to user page -- Swbcanning is presumably the subject of the article. I therefore give little credence to his views. The article certainly has good citations, but that does not prevent the subject being NN. An "unelected candidate" almost invariably fails WP:POLITICIAN. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:57, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep Although questionable in my opinion swbcanning's argument is pretty thorough and solid hwoever I'd reiterate my previous point on the main discussion page that some other sort of independent source would be nice. Jasonbruges (talk) 17:59, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Total fail on WP:POLITICIAN and too much WP:COI on the rest. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:44, 14 April 2010 (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.