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. JohnCD (talk) 11:42, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Being a party president doesn't make a person notable. Does not meet WP:BIO, and certainly does not meet WP:POLITICIAN. 117Avenue (talk) 02:24, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia doesn't use precedints. We have common outcomes, but not precedents, in particular to discussions that happened six years ago. --kelapstick(bainuu) 03:43, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Possible conflict of interest: Me-123567-Me has identified as a Green Party supporter on his/her user page. West Eddy (talk) 05:55, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. If the subject were the president of a national political party, or a major provincial party, he might be notable by virtue of that. But he's the president of a provincial political party that has never won any seats in its province's legislature. So I'm not convinced of his notability. --Metropolitan90(talk) 03:54, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per above. President of a significant party with seats, a history of electoral success, or a reasonable chance of upcoming success would be good enough to me. The Ontario Green party doesn't appear to fulfill any of these criteria for me at the present time though. Lankiveil(speak to me) 07:09, 22 April 2012 (UTC).[reply]
A party president can be notable if real reliable sources which actually demonstrate that the person has actually received substantial and sustained coverage in that role are present; a party president is not notable if the only available sources are ones which superficially confirm that the person exists but which convey no meaningful or substantial information about them or their career as a party president. The only sources here are his page on the Green Party's website itself, and one article whose only mention of Hewitt is a brief quote within an article that's about Mike Schreiner, not Bill Hewitt — in other words, the cited sources certainly confirm his existence, but utterly fail to demonstrate his notability. Furthermore, all of the "precedent" discussions alluded to above are six years old, and there's been more than enough tightening of our notability and sourcing rules over those six years that those discussions are absolutely inapplicable to any discussion happening in 2012 — many more discussions since then have established a clear precedent against poorly sourced articles about presidents of parties at the provincial level. By contemporary standards, in fact, both Neufeld and Marlowe are overdue for a revisit; LeDrew gets over on the fact that he went on to be a mayoral candidate and a television pundit after leaving the party presidency (as well as the fact that he was a federal, not provincial, party president of the party that was actually in government at the time he held the role, and thus garnered more than enough coverage in his own right to get past WP:GNGregardless of any blanket rule about the notability of party presidents.) Accordingly, as written, Mr. Hewitt does not pass WP:POLITICIAN or WP:GNG — while I'm certainly willing to reconsider my vote if the article can actually be expanded to properly convey genuine notability rather than mere existence, in this form it's an absolute delete. Bearcat (talk) 20:09, 24 April 2012 (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.