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. If somebody wants to fix this BLP, I'll be glad to userfy or incubate it. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:41, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Grant Neufeld[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Grant Neufeld (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Although this was kept when first discussed in 2005, the state of the article is such that it does need a review to look at whether it really conforms to Wikipedia's contemporary standards and policies as of 2012. Firstly, today's consensus has very much swung away from the idea that being the president of a political party at the provincial or state level automatically confers sufficient notability to entitle someone to an article just on that basis alone — and secondly, our rules around reliable sourcing are a lot tighter and stricter than they were seven years ago, such that there is not a single source in this article which passes 2012 standards: several are dead links, and the others are either invalid primary sources or mere listings of his name which fail to constitute substantive coverage of him. As always, I'm willing to withdraw this nomination if somebody can Heymann it up to a keepable standard with real, reliable sources — but as currently constituted, it does not meet contemporary notability and sourcing standards. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 22:37, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 22:42, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:11, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The core of WP:GNG is whether a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. That isn't demonstrated by this article; every single reference cited in it is insignificant, unreliable and/or not independent. It's certainly possible that Mr. Neufeld might meet WP:GNG in principle — but the article, in its current form, does not. And while it was repeatedly nominated in 2004 and 2005 (and sometimes even renominated within minutes of the previous discussion being closed), it hasn't been discussed once, or improved one whit, in the six years since. Wikipedia standards around notability and referencing are now much tighter and stricter than they were at that time; you could get away with a much lazier, much more poorly written and much more poorly referenced article back then than you can now. And you can't just assert that a topic passes WP:GNG, either — that has to be demonstrated by the actual use of actual reliable sources, and there aren't any here. As I said already, I'll happily withdraw this nomination if the article gets improved — but it's not entitled to stick around looking like this. Bearcat (talk) 17:41, 28 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.
More