Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rebecca Blaikie (3rd 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 Keep. Michig (talk) 09:17, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rebecca Blaikie

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

Party president is not inherently notable. Fails WP:GNG. Me-123567-Me (talk) 00:57, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

~~delete - non-notable. DangerDogWest (talk) 06:58, 24 October 2015 (UTC)~~[reply]

Struck content from confirmed sock above, per WP:SOCKSTRIKE. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:46, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:45, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Manitoba-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:45, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Fyddlestix (talk) 12:35, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's true that "party president" is not a role that gets a person an automatic inclusion freebie, just because the word president is involved, in the absence of any substantive reliable source coverage. It is, however, a role which does get a person into Wikipedia if enough reliable source coverage of them is available to satisfy WP:GNG. And for Blaikie, sufficient coverage is already there. Keep. Bearcat (talk) 15:27, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep NDP is a major political party in Canada, the president plays an important role in the party, and the position is listed as the second top person in the box on the New Democratic Party wikipedia article. Her four predecessors in the position all have wikipedia pages, and while they also have other merits, it does show that it is notable people that usually hold the office. The article is very well written. In August and September, the article had an average of about 25-30 views per day, which is not bad, and it shows that people are using it. Martinogk (talk) 00:54, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Agree with Martinogk, completely. Ditto his statements. Those who want deletion have said nothing more than "non-notable" and pretty much left it there, not much of an argument on their side. Freddiem (talk) 06:23, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Bearcat. Graham (talk) 17:06, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Like a major party state chairperson in the United States, this top position almost always is considered notable. Bearian (talk) 00:08, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not to be contrarian, but which criterion in WP:POLOUTCOMES would she meet? I don't see it. I also want to caution against an argument that seems to be creeping into a number of Canadian political bios of late, which is that page views mean much. They don't, for the purposes of the Afd. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:37, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If she's sourced well enough to pass WP:GNG, then she doesn't have to meet any criterion in WP:POLOUTCOMES — political parties are a form of WP:ORG, so she would get included or excluded on the same standards as any other president of any other organization regardless of whether she passed or failed NPOL. Bearcat (talk) 19:26, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It should also be noted that in Canada a Party President isn't the same as the Chairman of a US Party. Me-123567-Me (talk) 20:46, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So, yes, I don't find the passing coverage in Gnews to be terribly persuasive, and I don't think WP:POLOUTCOMES provides any precedent for someone in this particular position. However, there's some interesting results for her in a Google Book search and I think that, all taken together, she does meet notability requirements so Keep. 13:08, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

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.