- 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. ‑Scottywong | [spout] || 04:14, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- Naveed Anwar ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
The article topic does not WP:NPOL. Apparently, articles about unelected politicians like Naveed Anwar, Darrin Lamoureux and Naomi Hunter should be deleted regardless of the status of the party of which they are leaders.-- Darryl Kerrigan ( talk) 18:52, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
- Speedy keep. 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. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. Fight for freedom, stand with Hong Kong! ( talk) 19:13, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
- This fellow is currently the unelected leader of the Saskatchewan Liberal Party. He does not appear to meet WP:NPOL or WP:GNG based on the sources available. As you will see, the deletion was recommended by another editor at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Naomi Hunter.-- Darryl Kerrigan ( talk) 19:18, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
Weakdelete, I was able to find a bit of coverage that goes beyond the usual ROUTINE election and party news [1], as well as some local coverage of the business he runs with his family [2]. If there's likely to be offline coverage then we may be in NPOSSIBLE territory, but based solely on internet sources I think we fall short of GNG. signed, Rosguill talk 19:25, 14 September 2020 (UTC)- Striking weak from my vote; when I was searching for sources I was willing to give a bit of a benefit of the doubt, but given that keep !votes other than the procedural objection above have shown up and haven't been able to furnish any additional coverage, I'm more inclined to believe that what little I was able to find is really all there is. signed, Rosguill talk 15:47, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Darryl Kerrigan ( talk) 19:42, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 20:01, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
- Delete Fails
WP:NPOL and
WP:GNG. I searched Google, JSTOR and various newspaper databases for sources but only found
WP:ROUTINE. Notability is not inherited and he hasn't received enough coverage to be notable. The Star Phoenix article mentioned above is speculation about Anwar affecting a riding's election result but I think that shows notability for the riding result, not Anwar. Also, the PAHerald article sourced above might give notability to the company Anwar founded, but not necessarily to him. I would change my !vote if I found a profile about him or if he was elected to public office.
Z1720 (
talk)
01:35, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
-
Z1720, I do not agree with you on this. kindly check google news once again. -
Hatchens (
talk)
03:53, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
- In responding to the above request, I did a second look on Google News. One source I found [3] has a short bio on Anwar but the rest of the article discusses Sask. Liberal Party strategies and policies for the upcoming election. Some articles discuss his acclamation to the leadership: [4] [5] while others describe his candidacy for MLA in the 2016 election [6] [7]. Recently, there have been news articles about him stepping down as leader of the Sask. Liberal Party: [8] [9]. The problem I have with these sources is I don't think they show why a leader of a minor party in Saskatchewan (with no seats in their legislature for 15+ years) should have their own article, per WP:NPOL. He wasn't elected, his party has no representation, and he is not being profiled by media or academic sources. I am actually thinking of proposing a redirect to the Saskatchewan Liberal Party#Dissent and decline section to give information about his time as leader. If there's a source that would help show WP:N, please post it and I'll evaluate it. Z1720 ( talk) 21:08, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
-
Z1720, I do not agree with you on this. kindly check google news once again. -
Hatchens (
talk)
03:53, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
- Speedy Keep and expand. As an incumbent leader of
Saskatchewan Liberal Party, he passes
WP:NPOL. Enough credible media citations are available in the
Google News. -
Hatchens (
talk)
03:55, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
- NPOL doesn't establish the notability of state-level party leaders (or for that matter, any level). Per
WP:POLOUTCOMES,
Leaders of major sub-national (state, province, prefecture, etc.) level are usually deleted unless notability can be demonstrated for other reasons.
signed, Rosguill talk 04:16, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
- NPOL doesn't establish the notability of state-level party leaders (or for that matter, any level). Per
WP:POLOUTCOMES,
- Delete. 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 not also actual MLAs need to clear WP:GNG on their sourcing, which is a significantly higher bar than just being able to verify that they exist — rather, the requirement is to demonstrate the significance of his leadership, not just the fact of it, and this article isn't doing what's needed. Bearcat ( talk) 23:50, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
- Keep - leader of a significant political party in Saskatchewan. Sowny ( talk) 00:08, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
- That "significant" political party has not had a seat in the Saskatchewan legislature since 2003. It received 3.59% of the vote in
the last election and received no seats. Also Anwar has resigned so he is no longer the leader (holding the office for only two years). If the
current leader of the
Green Party of Saskatchewan is not notable, why would Anwar be? Anwar does not meet
WP:NPOL. Do you have any evidence to support a claim he has met
WP:GNG?--
Darryl Kerrigan (
talk)
01:21, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
- 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.
Sowny (
talk)
03:01, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
- 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). Anwar was the leader for two years (none of them during an election, and none of them where he held any elected office, nor when his party had any representation in the legislature).
Naomi Hunter is the current leader who will be taking the party into
an election in the coming months. If she is not notable, I don't see how Anwar is. What about those
WP:RS showing Anwar has received significant coverage to warrant
general notability?--
Darryl Kerrigan (
talk)
03:35, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
- As I said, the difference is he is or was the leader of a legacy party and she is not. A better comparison would be with former BC Conservative leader
Dan Brooks who has an article. If he merits an article so do Lamoureux and Anwar.
Sowny (
talk)
05:29, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
- I am not sure Brooks does warrant an article. He also seems to fail NPOL and GNG. It is notable that neither of the last two Conservative leaders (including the current one) have articles. Also the BC Conservatives aren't really a legacy party. They are no relation to the historic Conservatives in BC who actually governed the province, having merged a long time ago into what is not the BC Liberal Party. Regardless, as I have been told, there is no assumed notability for unelected provincial positions per WP:NPOL. Those arguing WP:GNG have to establish significant coverage in WP:RS. Anwar doesn't have such coverage.-- Darryl Kerrigan ( talk)
- Per
WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, 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 also be put up for deletion (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
WP:GNG on the back of enough
reliable sourcing to write a substantive article about the significance 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 during their leadership.
Bearcat (
talk)
15:56, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
- Conversely, as to 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 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. Sowny (talk) 17:30, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
- 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 mine.--
Darryl Kerrigan (
talk)
17:38, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
- This tangent is moot, GNG doesn't include any provisions for the automatic notability of party leaders, regardless of size or "legacy" status, nor does any other notability guideline. signed, Rosguill talk 17:42, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
- GNG is a measure of an article's sourcing, not of how important the topic's notability claim does or doesn't sound to you. There is nothing 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 they qualify to have a standalone biographical article, separately from having their name 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.
Bearcat (
talk)
16:55, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
-
Wikipedia:Notability 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 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.
Sowny (
talk)
21:01, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
- GNG is not just automatically met by every article that happens to have sources in it — it is not simply a matter of counting the footnotes and keeping anything that happens to surpass two, but also tests sources for their depth, their geographic range and the context of what they're covering the person for. 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 ongoing coverage of his work in the leadership, substantively establishing the significance of his leadership (which is not the same thing as the mere fact of it per se) and spanning the years in between the leadership conventions.
Bearcat (
talk)
23:26, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
- 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.
Sowny (
talk)
00:01, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
- 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 Wikipedia's subject-specific 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 does 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>2 or not, and not all possible sources are equal contributors toward the actual notability test. We require coverage which establishes the significance of his leadership, not just the technical fact of it per se.
Bearcat (
talk)
00:24, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
- Does your mother have an article on
CBC News profiling her? This article goes beyond establishing the "technical fact" of his political candidacy and explicitly discusses the significance of his candidacy, as per the standard you've laid out, as does the Leader-Post article.
[10]
Sowny (
talk)
06:42, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
- Firstly, "may have contributed to the defeat of another party's candidate because he got almost exactly the same number of votes that the other guy lost by" is not an article-clinching claim of significance in and of itself — it is not a reason why his role was "important" enough that he would pass the
ten year test on that basis alone. And secondly, people are not handed an automatic notability pass just because the letters "cbc" happen to be present in the web URL of some of their news coverage — there's still a big difference between coverage from the national news division of the CBC, which counts for a lot more, and coverage from the CBC's local news bureaux in the individual cities, which count for a lot less. (Coverage on
The National counts for a hell of a lot more than coverage on Saskatoon Morning does, frex — so one footnote having the letters "cbc" in it doesn't instantly clinch a magic notability pass all by itself if the same footnote also has the letters "saskatoon" in it.)
The article claims absolutely nothing that counts as notability-clinching evidence that his leadership was more significant than his lack of a seat in the legislature would suggest, and to pass GNG in lieu of having to pass NPOL he still needs a lot more than just a small handful of press hits in Saskatchewan's local media. Bearcat ( talk) 13:48, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
- Firstly, "may have contributed to the defeat of another party's candidate because he got almost exactly the same number of votes that the other guy lost by" is not an article-clinching claim of significance in and of itself — it is not a reason why his role was "important" enough that he would pass the
ten year test on that basis alone. And secondly, people are not handed an automatic notability pass just because the letters "cbc" happen to be present in the web URL of some of their news coverage — there's still a big difference between coverage from the national news division of the CBC, which counts for a lot more, and coverage from the CBC's local news bureaux in the individual cities, which count for a lot less. (Coverage on
The National counts for a hell of a lot more than coverage on Saskatoon Morning does, frex — so one footnote having the letters "cbc" in it doesn't instantly clinch a magic notability pass all by itself if the same footnote also has the letters "saskatoon" in it.)
- Does your mother have an article on
CBC News profiling her? This article goes beyond establishing the "technical fact" of his political candidacy and explicitly discusses the significance of his candidacy, as per the standard you've laid out, as does the Leader-Post article.
[10]
Sowny (
talk)
06:42, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
- 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 Wikipedia's subject-specific 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 does 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>2 or not, and not all possible sources are equal contributors toward the actual notability test. We require coverage which establishes the significance of his leadership, not just the technical fact of it per se.
Bearcat (
talk)
00:24, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
- 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.
Sowny (
talk)
00:01, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
- GNG is not just automatically met by every article that happens to have sources in it — it is not simply a matter of counting the footnotes and keeping anything that happens to surpass two, but also tests sources for their depth, their geographic range and the context of what they're covering the person for. 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 ongoing coverage of his work in the leadership, substantively establishing the significance of his leadership (which is not the same thing as the mere fact of it per se) and spanning the years in between the leadership conventions.
Bearcat (
talk)
23:26, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
-
Wikipedia:Notability 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 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.
Sowny (
talk)
21:01, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
- 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 mine.--
Darryl Kerrigan (
talk)
17:38, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
- Conversely, as to 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 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. Sowny (talk) 17:30, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
- As I said, the difference is he is or was the leader of a legacy party and she is not. A better comparison would be with former BC Conservative leader
Dan Brooks who has an article. If he merits an article so do Lamoureux and Anwar.
Sowny (
talk)
05:29, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
- 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). Anwar was the leader for two years (none of them during an election, and none of them where he held any elected office, nor when his party had any representation in the legislature).
Naomi Hunter is the current leader who will be taking the party into
an election in the coming months. If she is not notable, I don't see how Anwar is. What about those
WP:RS showing Anwar has received significant coverage to warrant
general notability?--
Darryl Kerrigan (
talk)
03:35, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
- 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.
Sowny (
talk)
03:01, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
- That "significant" political party has not had a seat in the Saskatchewan legislature since 2003. It received 3.59% of the vote in
the last election and received no seats. Also Anwar has resigned so he is no longer the leader (holding the office for only two years). If the
current leader of the
Green Party of Saskatchewan is not notable, why would Anwar be? Anwar does not meet
WP:NPOL. Do you have any evidence to support a claim he has met
WP:GNG?--
Darryl Kerrigan (
talk)
01:21, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
- Weak keep: Anwar received coverage in the aftermath of the 2016 election, including speculation that his candidacy was a deliberate (and successful) spoiler to bring down then-NDP leader Cam Broten. When he assumed the leadership of the Sask. Liberals, the Herald published an op-ed about it and the party's fortunes. It's not much, but the former is a relatively big deal, and the latter suggests he was still well-known enough to merit reaction a couple years later (AFAICT, previous leaders didn't get that sort of attention). So I lean towards keep, though the article could stand to be improved by focusing more on his 2016 candidacy (which is actually his biggest impact) instead of his leadership (which is not really significant). — Kawnhr ( talk) 18:46, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
- delete As per Nominator and Rosguill comment. WP:ROUTINE. DMySon 12:54, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
- Delete: Article does not meet GNG, BASIC and NPOL. Sources do not show SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth. Since this is a BLP notability and sourcing guidelines should be strictly followed. // Timothy :: talk 02:27, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
- Delete Local/regional party executive fails WP:GNG and WP:NPOL. KidAd talk 17:35, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
- He isn't a party exec, he's a party leader (in American terms, the equivalent of a gubernatorial candidate).
Sowny (
talk)
18:51, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
- He was the leader of a third party. He has resigned.--
Darryl Kerrigan (
talk)
19:12, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
- I am no expert on Canadian politics, but it appears that the Saskatchewan Liberal Party is the political equivalent of something like the Libertarian Party of Oregon or Green Party of California. The leader (or former leader, in this case) of a secondary or tertiary political party's regional/providence-level affiliate doesn't seem like it would pass WP:NPOL. KidAd talk 19:27, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
- He was the leader of a third party. He has resigned.--
Darryl Kerrigan (
talk)
19:12, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
- He isn't a party exec, he's a party leader (in American terms, the equivalent of a gubernatorial candidate).
Sowny (
talk)
18:51, 24 September 2020 (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.
- 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. ‑Scottywong | [spout] || 04:14, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- Naveed Anwar ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
The article topic does not WP:NPOL. Apparently, articles about unelected politicians like Naveed Anwar, Darrin Lamoureux and Naomi Hunter should be deleted regardless of the status of the party of which they are leaders.-- Darryl Kerrigan ( talk) 18:52, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
- Speedy keep. 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. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. Fight for freedom, stand with Hong Kong! ( talk) 19:13, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
- This fellow is currently the unelected leader of the Saskatchewan Liberal Party. He does not appear to meet WP:NPOL or WP:GNG based on the sources available. As you will see, the deletion was recommended by another editor at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Naomi Hunter.-- Darryl Kerrigan ( talk) 19:18, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
Weakdelete, I was able to find a bit of coverage that goes beyond the usual ROUTINE election and party news [1], as well as some local coverage of the business he runs with his family [2]. If there's likely to be offline coverage then we may be in NPOSSIBLE territory, but based solely on internet sources I think we fall short of GNG. signed, Rosguill talk 19:25, 14 September 2020 (UTC)- Striking weak from my vote; when I was searching for sources I was willing to give a bit of a benefit of the doubt, but given that keep !votes other than the procedural objection above have shown up and haven't been able to furnish any additional coverage, I'm more inclined to believe that what little I was able to find is really all there is. signed, Rosguill talk 15:47, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Darryl Kerrigan ( talk) 19:42, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 20:01, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
- Delete Fails
WP:NPOL and
WP:GNG. I searched Google, JSTOR and various newspaper databases for sources but only found
WP:ROUTINE. Notability is not inherited and he hasn't received enough coverage to be notable. The Star Phoenix article mentioned above is speculation about Anwar affecting a riding's election result but I think that shows notability for the riding result, not Anwar. Also, the PAHerald article sourced above might give notability to the company Anwar founded, but not necessarily to him. I would change my !vote if I found a profile about him or if he was elected to public office.
Z1720 (
talk)
01:35, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
-
Z1720, I do not agree with you on this. kindly check google news once again. -
Hatchens (
talk)
03:53, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
- In responding to the above request, I did a second look on Google News. One source I found [3] has a short bio on Anwar but the rest of the article discusses Sask. Liberal Party strategies and policies for the upcoming election. Some articles discuss his acclamation to the leadership: [4] [5] while others describe his candidacy for MLA in the 2016 election [6] [7]. Recently, there have been news articles about him stepping down as leader of the Sask. Liberal Party: [8] [9]. The problem I have with these sources is I don't think they show why a leader of a minor party in Saskatchewan (with no seats in their legislature for 15+ years) should have their own article, per WP:NPOL. He wasn't elected, his party has no representation, and he is not being profiled by media or academic sources. I am actually thinking of proposing a redirect to the Saskatchewan Liberal Party#Dissent and decline section to give information about his time as leader. If there's a source that would help show WP:N, please post it and I'll evaluate it. Z1720 ( talk) 21:08, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
-
Z1720, I do not agree with you on this. kindly check google news once again. -
Hatchens (
talk)
03:53, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
- Speedy Keep and expand. As an incumbent leader of
Saskatchewan Liberal Party, he passes
WP:NPOL. Enough credible media citations are available in the
Google News. -
Hatchens (
talk)
03:55, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
- NPOL doesn't establish the notability of state-level party leaders (or for that matter, any level). Per
WP:POLOUTCOMES,
Leaders of major sub-national (state, province, prefecture, etc.) level are usually deleted unless notability can be demonstrated for other reasons.
signed, Rosguill talk 04:16, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
- NPOL doesn't establish the notability of state-level party leaders (or for that matter, any level). Per
WP:POLOUTCOMES,
- Delete. 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 not also actual MLAs need to clear WP:GNG on their sourcing, which is a significantly higher bar than just being able to verify that they exist — rather, the requirement is to demonstrate the significance of his leadership, not just the fact of it, and this article isn't doing what's needed. Bearcat ( talk) 23:50, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
- Keep - leader of a significant political party in Saskatchewan. Sowny ( talk) 00:08, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
- That "significant" political party has not had a seat in the Saskatchewan legislature since 2003. It received 3.59% of the vote in
the last election and received no seats. Also Anwar has resigned so he is no longer the leader (holding the office for only two years). If the
current leader of the
Green Party of Saskatchewan is not notable, why would Anwar be? Anwar does not meet
WP:NPOL. Do you have any evidence to support a claim he has met
WP:GNG?--
Darryl Kerrigan (
talk)
01:21, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
- 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.
Sowny (
talk)
03:01, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
- 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). Anwar was the leader for two years (none of them during an election, and none of them where he held any elected office, nor when his party had any representation in the legislature).
Naomi Hunter is the current leader who will be taking the party into
an election in the coming months. If she is not notable, I don't see how Anwar is. What about those
WP:RS showing Anwar has received significant coverage to warrant
general notability?--
Darryl Kerrigan (
talk)
03:35, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
- As I said, the difference is he is or was the leader of a legacy party and she is not. A better comparison would be with former BC Conservative leader
Dan Brooks who has an article. If he merits an article so do Lamoureux and Anwar.
Sowny (
talk)
05:29, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
- I am not sure Brooks does warrant an article. He also seems to fail NPOL and GNG. It is notable that neither of the last two Conservative leaders (including the current one) have articles. Also the BC Conservatives aren't really a legacy party. They are no relation to the historic Conservatives in BC who actually governed the province, having merged a long time ago into what is not the BC Liberal Party. Regardless, as I have been told, there is no assumed notability for unelected provincial positions per WP:NPOL. Those arguing WP:GNG have to establish significant coverage in WP:RS. Anwar doesn't have such coverage.-- Darryl Kerrigan ( talk)
- Per
WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, 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 also be put up for deletion (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
WP:GNG on the back of enough
reliable sourcing to write a substantive article about the significance 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 during their leadership.
Bearcat (
talk)
15:56, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
- Conversely, as to 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 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. Sowny (talk) 17:30, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
- 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 mine.--
Darryl Kerrigan (
talk)
17:38, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
- This tangent is moot, GNG doesn't include any provisions for the automatic notability of party leaders, regardless of size or "legacy" status, nor does any other notability guideline. signed, Rosguill talk 17:42, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
- GNG is a measure of an article's sourcing, not of how important the topic's notability claim does or doesn't sound to you. There is nothing 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 they qualify to have a standalone biographical article, separately from having their name 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.
Bearcat (
talk)
16:55, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
-
Wikipedia:Notability 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 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.
Sowny (
talk)
21:01, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
- GNG is not just automatically met by every article that happens to have sources in it — it is not simply a matter of counting the footnotes and keeping anything that happens to surpass two, but also tests sources for their depth, their geographic range and the context of what they're covering the person for. 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 ongoing coverage of his work in the leadership, substantively establishing the significance of his leadership (which is not the same thing as the mere fact of it per se) and spanning the years in between the leadership conventions.
Bearcat (
talk)
23:26, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
- 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.
Sowny (
talk)
00:01, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
- 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 Wikipedia's subject-specific 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 does 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>2 or not, and not all possible sources are equal contributors toward the actual notability test. We require coverage which establishes the significance of his leadership, not just the technical fact of it per se.
Bearcat (
talk)
00:24, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
- Does your mother have an article on
CBC News profiling her? This article goes beyond establishing the "technical fact" of his political candidacy and explicitly discusses the significance of his candidacy, as per the standard you've laid out, as does the Leader-Post article.
[10]
Sowny (
talk)
06:42, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
- Firstly, "may have contributed to the defeat of another party's candidate because he got almost exactly the same number of votes that the other guy lost by" is not an article-clinching claim of significance in and of itself — it is not a reason why his role was "important" enough that he would pass the
ten year test on that basis alone. And secondly, people are not handed an automatic notability pass just because the letters "cbc" happen to be present in the web URL of some of their news coverage — there's still a big difference between coverage from the national news division of the CBC, which counts for a lot more, and coverage from the CBC's local news bureaux in the individual cities, which count for a lot less. (Coverage on
The National counts for a hell of a lot more than coverage on Saskatoon Morning does, frex — so one footnote having the letters "cbc" in it doesn't instantly clinch a magic notability pass all by itself if the same footnote also has the letters "saskatoon" in it.)
The article claims absolutely nothing that counts as notability-clinching evidence that his leadership was more significant than his lack of a seat in the legislature would suggest, and to pass GNG in lieu of having to pass NPOL he still needs a lot more than just a small handful of press hits in Saskatchewan's local media. Bearcat ( talk) 13:48, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
- Firstly, "may have contributed to the defeat of another party's candidate because he got almost exactly the same number of votes that the other guy lost by" is not an article-clinching claim of significance in and of itself — it is not a reason why his role was "important" enough that he would pass the
ten year test on that basis alone. And secondly, people are not handed an automatic notability pass just because the letters "cbc" happen to be present in the web URL of some of their news coverage — there's still a big difference between coverage from the national news division of the CBC, which counts for a lot more, and coverage from the CBC's local news bureaux in the individual cities, which count for a lot less. (Coverage on
The National counts for a hell of a lot more than coverage on Saskatoon Morning does, frex — so one footnote having the letters "cbc" in it doesn't instantly clinch a magic notability pass all by itself if the same footnote also has the letters "saskatoon" in it.)
- Does your mother have an article on
CBC News profiling her? This article goes beyond establishing the "technical fact" of his political candidacy and explicitly discusses the significance of his candidacy, as per the standard you've laid out, as does the Leader-Post article.
[10]
Sowny (
talk)
06:42, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
- 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 Wikipedia's subject-specific 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 does 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>2 or not, and not all possible sources are equal contributors toward the actual notability test. We require coverage which establishes the significance of his leadership, not just the technical fact of it per se.
Bearcat (
talk)
00:24, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
- 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.
Sowny (
talk)
00:01, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
- GNG is not just automatically met by every article that happens to have sources in it — it is not simply a matter of counting the footnotes and keeping anything that happens to surpass two, but also tests sources for their depth, their geographic range and the context of what they're covering the person for. 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 ongoing coverage of his work in the leadership, substantively establishing the significance of his leadership (which is not the same thing as the mere fact of it per se) and spanning the years in between the leadership conventions.
Bearcat (
talk)
23:26, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
-
Wikipedia:Notability 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 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.
Sowny (
talk)
21:01, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
- 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 mine.--
Darryl Kerrigan (
talk)
17:38, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
- Conversely, as to 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 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. Sowny (talk) 17:30, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
- As I said, the difference is he is or was the leader of a legacy party and she is not. A better comparison would be with former BC Conservative leader
Dan Brooks who has an article. If he merits an article so do Lamoureux and Anwar.
Sowny (
talk)
05:29, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
- 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). Anwar was the leader for two years (none of them during an election, and none of them where he held any elected office, nor when his party had any representation in the legislature).
Naomi Hunter is the current leader who will be taking the party into
an election in the coming months. If she is not notable, I don't see how Anwar is. What about those
WP:RS showing Anwar has received significant coverage to warrant
general notability?--
Darryl Kerrigan (
talk)
03:35, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
- 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.
Sowny (
talk)
03:01, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
- That "significant" political party has not had a seat in the Saskatchewan legislature since 2003. It received 3.59% of the vote in
the last election and received no seats. Also Anwar has resigned so he is no longer the leader (holding the office for only two years). If the
current leader of the
Green Party of Saskatchewan is not notable, why would Anwar be? Anwar does not meet
WP:NPOL. Do you have any evidence to support a claim he has met
WP:GNG?--
Darryl Kerrigan (
talk)
01:21, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
- Weak keep: Anwar received coverage in the aftermath of the 2016 election, including speculation that his candidacy was a deliberate (and successful) spoiler to bring down then-NDP leader Cam Broten. When he assumed the leadership of the Sask. Liberals, the Herald published an op-ed about it and the party's fortunes. It's not much, but the former is a relatively big deal, and the latter suggests he was still well-known enough to merit reaction a couple years later (AFAICT, previous leaders didn't get that sort of attention). So I lean towards keep, though the article could stand to be improved by focusing more on his 2016 candidacy (which is actually his biggest impact) instead of his leadership (which is not really significant). — Kawnhr ( talk) 18:46, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
- delete As per Nominator and Rosguill comment. WP:ROUTINE. DMySon 12:54, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
- Delete: Article does not meet GNG, BASIC and NPOL. Sources do not show SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth. Since this is a BLP notability and sourcing guidelines should be strictly followed. // Timothy :: talk 02:27, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
- Delete Local/regional party executive fails WP:GNG and WP:NPOL. KidAd talk 17:35, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
- He isn't a party exec, he's a party leader (in American terms, the equivalent of a gubernatorial candidate).
Sowny (
talk)
18:51, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
- He was the leader of a third party. He has resigned.--
Darryl Kerrigan (
talk)
19:12, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
- I am no expert on Canadian politics, but it appears that the Saskatchewan Liberal Party is the political equivalent of something like the Libertarian Party of Oregon or Green Party of California. The leader (or former leader, in this case) of a secondary or tertiary political party's regional/providence-level affiliate doesn't seem like it would pass WP:NPOL. KidAd talk 19:27, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
- He was the leader of a third party. He has resigned.--
Darryl Kerrigan (
talk)
19:12, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
- He isn't a party exec, he's a party leader (in American terms, the equivalent of a gubernatorial candidate).
Sowny (
talk)
18:51, 24 September 2020 (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.