Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ches Crosbie

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 Progressive Conservative Party of Newfoundland and Labrador leadership election, 2018. -- RoySmith (talk) 11:42, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ches Crosbie

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

Doesn't meet WP:NPOL or WP:GNG. WP:ATD is redirect to Progressive Conservative Party of Newfoundland and Labrador leadership election, 2018 which would preserve article for if it is just WP:TOOSOON. Boleyn (talk) 05:33, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Only sources are basically ROUTINE and interviews, He had a career as a lawyer, but it is not notable, non of his other political stunts have gathered any significant coverage either. Α Guy into Books™ § (Message) - 07:36, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:13, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:13, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:13, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. One of the most prominent lawyers in Newfoundland, Q.C. From a prominent political family & has been travelling the province for almost a year promoting his candidacy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kbq430 (talk • contribs) 20:27, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Firstly, having a Q.C. is not an automatic inclusion freebie that exempts a person from having to be sourced much better than this. Secondly, notability is WP:NOTINHERITED, so being a member of a prominent political family counts for nothing whatsoever. Thirdly, being an as yet non-winning candidate for the leadership of a political party does not pass WP:NPOL — to be notable as a politician a person has to hold office, not just run for it, and the only other way for an as yet unelected candidate to get an article is to have already passed another inclusion criterion for another reason (that is, Hillary Clinton does not have an article because she ran for president in 2016 and lost; she has an article because she held the roles of First Lady, Senator for New York and U.S. Secretary of State before running for president.) No prejudice against recreation in April 2018 if he wins the leadership, but nothing written or sourced here gets him an article as of September 2017. Bearcat (talk) 06:22, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I am pretty sure that Mrs. Clinton would have an article if she had only ever been notable for holding her party's nomination for US president. As an example that this is probably the fact we have an article on Evan McMullin, who was not even a candidate of any pre-existing party, but gained enough support in the election, and enough newsmedia coverage to justify an article on him. The article was created 8 August 2016, and I doubt that his position as a policy advisor to the US Congress House of Representatives Republican caucus would have been enough to justify an article the day before, but I don't really know.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:31, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect ATD per nom. L3X1 (distænt write) 02:21, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not meet notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:31, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per nom - doesn't seem to currently meet notability standards right now, but it's probably useful as a redirect, which will also preserve the history for recreation in the future. ansh 666 05:00, 24 September 2017 (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.