666:
extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material.". The article meets that standard of notability and in addition, the sources cites are both reliable and independent so as far as I can see, all three elements of the test have been passed.
665:
states "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list." and that: ""Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to
639:
in GNG that states that leaders of "legacy" political parties are treated differently than leaders of "emerging" political parties when it comes to notability — either way, the question of whether the leader qualifies to have a standalone biographical article, separately from having their name
597:
Conversely, Darryl's point, otherstuffdoesntexist - the fact that Hunter's bio was deleted doesn't in and of itself justify deleting another article. The point remains that the
Liberal Party of Saskatchewan, unlike the Greens, is s legacy party that was in government relatively recently (as a
453:
Unlike the Greens, the
Liberals were once the ruling party of Saskatchewan and were more recently part of a governing coalition. That makes them a legacy party, IMHO, unlike the Greens who have never won a seat, and therefore Liberal Party leaders are notable, while SK Green leaders are not.
696:. That is, a political party leader does not instantly pass GNG just because you can show a blip of "person wins leadership" on the day of the convention and another blip of "leader resigns" on the day of his resignation — to get a political party leader over GNG, you have to show
468:
One party has been in decline since the 1990s and the other is in an uptick across the country. The Sask
Liberals have received a smaller and smaller share of the vote in every election since the 90s. They were wiped out in 2003 and have not held a seat since (17 years).
368:. We long ago deprecated the idea that every leader of a political party was automatically handed an "inherent" notability freebie just for existing, without regard to his sourceability or lack thereof. The standard is now that leaders of political parties who are
285:, having now concluded a search for sources, I don't see any coverage other than ROUTINE announcements of his election (acclamation?) to the party position and his later resignation, plus one article that quotes him as a spokesperson for the party. Does not meet
728:
Thanks, but the sources in the article establish notability beyond the threshold established by the policy, as written, and that is what is required. I cannot see evidence of the added strictures you are imposing in the actual policy, as it is written.
550:, the fact that Dan Brooks has an article (which you may notice has also been flagged for notability questions since 2014) does not mean every leader of every political party gets to have one too — it means Dan Brooks' article should
743:
As I've often pointed out in AFD discussions, if the existence of two sources were enough all by itself to hand people a GNG-based exemption from having to be notable for any specific reason that would pass any of
Knowledge's
612:
What are you talking about? How were they RECENTLY part of a coalition government when they haven't had a seat in the legislature for 17 years? Your idea of what constitutes "recently" seems to be quite different from
203:
748:
inclusion criteria, then we would have to keep an article about my mother's neighbour who once got into the papers for finding a pig in her front yard — which is exactly why notability doesn't work that way, and
574:
of their leadership, and does not get an automatic inclusion freebie just because it's possible to nominally verify that they exist(ed) as a leader of a political party with no representation in the legislature
558:(and just guess what's now happened). Leading a "legacy" party is not a notability freebie that works differently than leading an "emerging" party does — either way, the person still has to clear
753:
work exactly the way I said it does: it tests the footnotes for factors like their depth, their geographic range and the context in which they're covering the person, not just for whether n: -->
268:. No policy/guideline based grounds cited for deletion. No effort to comply with WP:BEFORE wet the GNG. Saying you don't believe a subject should be notable is an argument carrying no weight.
640:
mentioned in the party's article, lives or dies on the quality and depth of their sourcing, not on the question of whether the party is a "legacy" one or an "emerging" one. GNG measures the
598:
minority coalition partner) and had previously been in government as a majority. As for GNG - they pass it because they are the leader of a legacy party, therefore they are notable.
156:
308:
197:
328:
470:
424:
103:
88:
528:
As I said, the difference is he was the leader of a legacy party and she is not. A better comparison would be with former BC Conservative leader
163:
754:
2 or not, and not all possible sources are equal contributors toward the actual notability test. We require coverage which establishes the
129:
124:
270:
The Big Bad
Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. Fight for freedom, stand with Hong Kong!
133:
474:
420:
380:, which is a significantly higher bar than just being able to verify that they exist — rather, the requirement is to demonstrate the
419:
That "significant" political party has not had a seat in the
Saskatchewan legislature since 2003. It received 3.59% of the vote in
116:
273:
218:
83:
76:
17:
684:
simply a matter of counting the footnotes and keeping anything that happens to surpass two, but also tests sources for their
185:
428:
97:
93:
627:
As I responded in the other place where you made basically the exact same comment, GNG is a measure of an article's
804:
547:
269:
179:
875:
618:
509:
490:
444:
356:
316:
255:
40:
858:
825:
767:
738:
721:
675:
657:
622:
607:
588:
541:
521:
494:
463:
448:
410:
393:
360:
340:
320:
299:
277:
259:
58:
175:
508:
If you believe Naomi Hunter is notable than create a new article on her with sufficient sources or go to
871:
225:
120:
36:
708:
of his leadership (which is not the same thing as the mere fact of it per se) and spanning the years
662:
614:
503:
486:
440:
352:
312:
251:
336:
211:
848:
763:
717:
680:
GNG is not just automatically met by every article that happens to have sources in it — it is
653:
584:
389:
191:
72:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
870:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
243:
112:
64:
853:
734:
671:
603:
537:
517:
459:
406:
384:
of his leadership, not just the fact of it, and this article isn't doing what's needed.
844:
840:
816:
432:
332:
235:
836:
559:
482:
436:
373:
292:
286:
250:
should be deleted regardless of the status of the party of which they are leaders.--
759:
713:
649:
580:
563:
478:
385:
247:
239:
150:
730:
667:
599:
533:
529:
513:
455:
402:
54:
477:. If she is not notable, I don't see how Lamoureux is. What about those
532:
who has an article. If he merits an article so do
Lamoureux and Anwar.
631:, not of how important the topic's notability claim does or doesn't
401:- former leader of a significant political party in Saskatchewan.
431:
is not notable, why would
Lamoureux be? Lamoureux does not meet
866:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
481:
showing
Lamoureux has received significant coverage to warrant
423:
and received no seats (under
Lamoureux's leadership). If the
351:
nothing beyond routine coverage, no actual show of notability.
807:
to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
758:
of his leadership, not just the technical fact of it per se.
435:. Do you have any evidence to support a claim he has met
473:
is the current leader who will be taking the party into
238:. Apparently, articles about unelected politicians like
847:
regional party leader that has not won elected office.
146:
142:
138:
210:
692:
and the context of what they're covering the person
644:, not subjective opinions about the importance of a
813:Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
43:). No further edits should be made to this page.
878:). No further edits should be made to this page.
327:Note: This discussion has been included in the
309:list of Politicians-related deletion discussions
307:Note: This discussion has been included in the
704:the leadership, substantively establishing the
224:
8:
104:Help, my article got nominated for deletion!
329:list of Canada-related deletion discussions
326:
306:
7:
24:
475:an election in the coming months
89:Introduction to deletion process
372:also actual MLAs need to clear
18:Knowledge:Articles for deletion
859:01:23, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
826:18:47, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
768:00:23, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
739:00:01, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
722:23:23, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
676:21:01, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
658:17:00, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
623:17:41, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
608:17:30, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
589:15:42, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
542:05:29, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
522:21:07, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
495:03:36, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
464:03:01, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
449:01:22, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
411:00:11, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
394:23:49, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
361:20:56, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
341:20:00, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
321:19:42, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
300:19:15, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
278:19:11, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
260:19:00, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
59:20:48, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
1:
712:the leadership conventions.
635:to you personally. There is
429:Green Party of Saskatchewan
234:The article topic does not
79:(AfD)? Read these primers!
895:
512:to contest the deletion.
510:Knowledge:Deletion_review
868:Please do not modify it.
32:Please do not modify it.
562:on the back of enough
700:coverage of his work
77:Articles for deletion
663:Knowledge:Notability
688:, their geographic
548:WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS
637:absolutely nothing
579:their leadership.
570:article about the
483:general notability
828:
824:
564:reliable sourcing
421:the last election
353:John Pack Lambert
343:
323:
94:Guide to deletion
84:How to contribute
886:
856:
851:
823:
821:
814:
812:
810:
808:
746:subject-specific
507:
244:Darrin Lamoureux
229:
228:
214:
166:
154:
136:
113:Darrin Lamoureux
74:
65:Darrin Lamoureux
34:
894:
893:
889:
888:
887:
885:
884:
883:
882:
876:deletion review
854:
849:
843:. Just another
829:
817:
815:
803:
801:
615:Darryl Kerrigan
504:Darryl Kerrigan
501:
487:Darryl Kerrigan
441:Darryl Kerrigan
313:Darryl Kerrigan
291:
252:Darryl Kerrigan
171:
162:
127:
111:
108:
71:
68:
48:The result was
41:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
892:
890:
881:
880:
862:
861:
811:
800:
799:
798:
797:
796:
795:
794:
793:
792:
791:
790:
789:
788:
787:
786:
785:
784:
783:
782:
781:
780:
779:
778:
777:
776:
775:
774:
773:
772:
771:
770:
625:
554:be put up for
526:
525:
524:
425:current leader
414:
413:
396:
363:
345:
344:
324:
303:
302:
289:
280:
232:
231:
168:
107:
106:
101:
91:
86:
69:
67:
62:
46:
45:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
891:
879:
877:
873:
869:
864:
863:
860:
857:
852:
846:
842:
838:
834:
831:
830:
827:
822:
820:
809:
806:
769:
765:
761:
757:
752:
747:
742:
741:
740:
736:
732:
727:
726:
725:
724:
723:
719:
715:
711:
707:
703:
699:
695:
691:
687:
683:
679:
678:
677:
673:
669:
664:
661:
660:
659:
655:
651:
647:
643:
638:
634:
630:
626:
624:
620:
616:
611:
610:
609:
605:
601:
596:
595:
594:
593:
592:
591:
590:
586:
582:
578:
573:
569:
565:
561:
557:
553:
549:
545:
544:
543:
539:
535:
531:
527:
523:
519:
515:
511:
505:
500:
499:
498:
497:
496:
492:
488:
484:
480:
476:
472:
467:
466:
465:
461:
457:
452:
451:
450:
446:
442:
438:
434:
430:
426:
422:
418:
417:
416:
415:
412:
408:
404:
400:
397:
395:
391:
387:
383:
379:
375:
371:
367:
364:
362:
358:
354:
350:
347:
346:
342:
338:
334:
330:
325:
322:
318:
314:
310:
305:
304:
301:
298:
297:
296:
288:
284:
281:
279:
275:
271:
267:
264:
263:
262:
261:
257:
253:
249:
245:
241:
237:
227:
223:
220:
217:
213:
209:
205:
202:
199:
196:
193:
190:
187:
184:
181:
177:
174:
173:Find sources:
169:
165:
161:
158:
152:
148:
144:
140:
135:
131:
126:
122:
118:
114:
110:
109:
105:
102:
99:
95:
92:
90:
87:
85:
82:
81:
80:
78:
73:
66:
63:
61:
60:
57:
56:
51:
44:
42:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
867:
865:
832:
818:
802:
756:significance
755:
750:
745:
709:
706:significance
705:
701:
697:
693:
689:
685:
681:
645:
641:
636:
632:
628:
576:
572:significance
571:
567:
555:
551:
471:Naomi Hunter
398:
382:significance
381:
377:
369:
365:
348:
294:
293:
282:
265:
248:Naomi Hunter
240:Naveed Anwar
233:
221:
215:
207:
200:
194:
188:
182:
172:
159:
70:
53:
49:
47:
31:
28:
568:substantive
566:to write a
266:Speedy keep
198:free images
819:Sandstein
710:in between
530:Dan Brooks
872:talk page
646:statement
376:on their
333:Shellwood
37:talk page
874:or in a
805:Relisted
629:sourcing
556:deletion
378:sourcing
295:Rosguill
290:signed,
157:View log
98:glossary
39:or in a
845:generic
841:WP:NPOL
760:Bearcat
714:Bearcat
698:ongoing
650:Bearcat
642:sources
613:mine.--
581:Bearcat
433:WP:NPOL
427:of the
386:Bearcat
236:WP:NPOL
204:WP refs
192:scholar
130:protect
125:history
75:New to
837:WP:GNG
835:Fails
833:Delete
577:during
560:WP:GNG
437:WP:GNG
374:WP:GNG
366:Delete
349:Delete
287:WP:GNG
283:Delete
176:Google
134:delete
50:delete
850:KidAd
731:Sowny
690:range
686:depth
668:Sowny
633:sound
600:Sowny
534:Sowny
514:Sowny
479:WP:RS
456:Sowny
403:Sowny
219:JSTOR
180:books
164:Stats
151:views
143:watch
139:links
16:<
855:talk
839:and
764:talk
751:does
735:talk
718:talk
672:talk
654:talk
619:talk
604:talk
585:talk
552:also
546:Per
538:talk
518:talk
491:talk
460:talk
445:talk
407:talk
399:Keep
390:talk
357:talk
337:talk
317:talk
274:talk
256:talk
246:and
212:FENS
186:news
147:logs
121:talk
117:edit
55:Tone
694:for
682:not
485:?--
439:?--
370:not
226:TWL
155:– (
766:)
737:)
720:)
702:in
674:)
656:)
648:.
621:)
606:)
587:)
540:)
520:)
493:)
462:)
447:)
409:)
392:)
359:)
339:)
331:.
319:)
311:.
276:)
258:)
242:,
206:)
149:|
145:|
141:|
137:|
132:|
128:|
123:|
119:|
52:.
762:(
733:(
716:(
670:(
652:(
617:(
602:(
583:(
536:(
516:(
506::
502:@
489:(
458:(
443:(
405:(
388:(
355:(
335:(
315:(
272:(
254:(
230:)
222:·
216:·
208:·
201:·
195:·
189:·
183:·
178:(
170:(
167:)
160:·
153:)
115:(
100:)
96:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.