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. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:14, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Erin Weir[edit]

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

Not notable Eiad77 (talk) 05:09, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:58, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:58, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This article cites exactly three "sources" (looks like more, but each of them is repeated at least twice): one is a dead link (and an unretrievable one, at that, as it's a plain URL with no reference data), one is an unreliable source and one is his own resumé. While he appears to hold a prominent enough position that he might be sufficiently notable if proper sources were present, they aren't — and Google wasn't much help, either, providing plenty of stuff written by him but nothing about him. Delete as unsourced WP:BLP. Bearcat (talk) 05:56, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:22, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:POLITICIAN and as Bearcat has noted, the article is effectively unsourced. PK T(alk) 15:24, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Weir is mentioned briefly to in a small number of scholarly articles (e.g., [1] and books, as well as a number of reliable news sources. I've added a few to the article. Notability might still arguable both any of GNG or SCHOLAR or POLITICIAN alone, but there's certainly more than enough sourcing out there for verification of the basics. --joe decker ^{talk to me} 16:00, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 12:42, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Very weak keep per WP:BARE - clearly fails POLITICIAN, but passes GNG by dint of the sources. Economist for a national party is probably a notable position. 17:35, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
Keep - the subject appears to pass both WP:GNG and the information in the article is verifiable. Wer900 ^talk_{essay on the definition of consensus} 22:55, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets GNG, well-sourced, and an economist for a major political party. Canadianism (talk) 19:41, 25 March 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.