Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Grant Humes

Grant Humes

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

Another campaign brochure for an as-yet unelected candidate in the Canadian federal election; while it is doing a more clever impersonation of reliable sourcing than some of them, all of the sources still relate to his candidacy itself and none to demonstrating any sort of preexisting notability that would meet WP:POLITICIAN. As usual, he's certainly entitled to an article if he wins, but not to use Wikipedia as a campaign tool in the meantime. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 08:44, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Ref 6 seems to have something to it, combined with ref 3 and your getting close to the GNG standard. More generally, I would also mention that it seems biased if our standards for inclusion consistently allow incumbents to have articles while denying the same to serious challengers, though that does largely seem to be the standard if there isn't clear GNG evidence. Monty ₈₄₅ 12:14, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ref 6 is just a "ten ridings to watch" list which happens to mention Humes' name; it fails to be substantial coverage in which he's the primary topic of the article. Bearcat (talk) 16:32, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I realize now that initial sources with biographical information came directly from the candidates website. Since publishing this article I have found a number of other sources from independent outlets that I plan on working into this article and potentially removing the sources from the candidates website and other liberal party sites. Sources listed bellow.--MrGVaughan (talk) 15:32, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Another Comment why I think this is notable for wikipedia is that Humes is mentioned in a number of other wikipedia articles particularly Durham (electoral district), in this case readers who visit this page to find out about the upcoming election and the riding information are only able to view information about the incumbent and are not able to access information on any of the other candidates. Certainly with the additional sources bellow the article can be modified to maintain a more neutral view however I don't believe it should be deleted. Hopefully this can be viewed as a step towards producing a notable balanced article and not cause for immediate deletion.--MrGVaughan (talk) 15:32, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is not Wikipedia's job to provide "public service" to the voters by writing articles about every single candidate who stands in an election whether they've already held office or not; that's the job of the media and the candidate's campaign literature. Our job here involves inclusion rules such as notability and reliable sourcing — and with rare exceptions for people who actually break out into the national rather than strictly local news, our rules for politicians generally require that a person has actually held office.

And further, our reliable sourcing rules require that Humes himself is actually the primary subject of a substantial volume of press coverage; it's not good enough to demonstrate that he's gotten some passing mentions in news articles that aren't specifically about him. And the fact that he's gotten coverage in local media doesn't inherently demonstrate notability, either — because he's a local candidate in a current election, the local media have an obligation to give him coverage. In an encyclopedia, however, we're not bound by the rules or the considerations that pertain to local news media — we have to look at the bigger picture: does a person in Singapore need to know about him? If he loses and never runs for office again, will anybody still need to read a really substantial profile of him in 2025? If the Vancouver Sun were writing about him, that would probably imply notability — but the fact that a newspaper that's obligated to give coverage to its local election candidates is giving coverage to a local election candidate doesn't prove anything. Bearcat (talk) 16:06, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment +1 to Monty on mentioning the bias that incumbents are allowed to have articles while denying articles to serious challengers.--MrGVaughan (talk) 15:32, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's not bias, because the rules are the same no matter what political party a person is associated with. It might be inconvenient if you're operating from the perspective of a campaign volunteer who wants to promote the candidate as widely as possible — but it's not bias, because it's independent of ideology. Two ridings over in Pickering, everything's vice versa and we have an article about the Liberal incumbent Mark Holland but not about his unelected Conservative challenger — so it's not about preferencing one party over another, but simply about who has or hasn't done something significant enough to warrant being an article topic in an encyclopedia.

And we also have to pay attention to considerations such as biographies of living persons; if he loses the election, for example, then having an article on here can become a hindrance to his privacy rights as a person who isn't a public figure. Bearcat (talk) 16:06, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In regards to your first point, I would say it is still a bias even if no one intended the particular result. Given the retention rates of incumbents, maybe we are just reflecting the system at large. As for the second point, I don't think it is that reasonable to worry about the privacy impact when the person has so obviously made themselves a public figure by running for office and all the article is reporting on is material related to the run for office. (obviously if the person stops being a public figure, coverage should limit itself to the public part of his life) Monty ₈₄₅ 16:37, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

People don't make their voting decisions based on whether a candidate has a Wikipedia article or not. In the Calgary municipal election last year, there were two "front-running" candidates, Ric McIver and Barb Higgins, who had Wikipedia articles because they were already notable for other things even before they ran for mayor, and one "minor" candidate, Naheed Nenshi, who didn't have a Wikipedia article because he was a fairly obscure and little-known academic. Wanna take a wild stab in the dark guess which one of them actually won the election?

The thing is, our job here isn't really about immediate and/or locally oriented news coverage; we even have a policy which explicitly states that Wikipedia is not a news outlet. Our job here is to reflect the long view of history: we care about people who've actually held notable elected offices because users across Canada and internationally will still be looking for information about elected MPs ten or 20 or 50 years from now. But those same users won't be looking for information about unsuccessful candidates — not even the ones in their own riding, let alone some other riding halfway across the country — ten or 20 or 50 days after the election campaign ends on May 2. Bearcat (talk) 17:02, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I challenge your claim that "users across Canada and internationally will still be looking for information about elected MPs ten or 20 or 50 years from now. But those same users won't be looking for information about unsuccessful candidates" As in this riding alone Durham (electoral district) there is record of all candidates for the past 100 years and their results. Additionally if you look at the page for Bruce Rogers (broadcaster) and NDP candidate for a previous election you can see that he is able to have a page and without any sources whatsoever. I'm sure if I investigate other riding's I could reach similar conclusions. If I could put information without sources like that article I could have easily included more information about Humes' notable business career. In my opinion it seems like you are rushing to delete this article rather then giving it a chance to build a more polished result.--MrGVaughan (talk) 17:38, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Additional Sources to Consider

All of these are either cursory passing mentions in articles about other things, or local coverage that, as a duly registered local candidate in an election, the local media are required to give him. None of it rises above generic "candidate in an election" coverage. Bearcat (talk) 16:26, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]