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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:29, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keith Marlowe[edit]

Keith Marlowe (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)

Previous discussion in 2006 resulted in a no consensus keep, so I'm bringing this back for a review of whether it really meets Wikipedia's contemporary sourcing and notability standards as they exist in 2012. Firstly, modern consensus has very much swung away from the view that merely having a role in a political party's organizational structure automatically confers sufficient notability to entitle someone to an article on that basis alone — and secondly, Wikipedia's reliable sourcing standards have tightened up considerably since 2006, such that this article contains no sources that pass 2012 standards: one is an invalid primary source, one is a dead link whose content is impossible to verify, one provides an author's name and publication date but fails to actually name the publication that's actually being cited, and the final one is an article that certainly mentions his existence but fails to really be about him in any way meaningful enough to overcome the lack of other sources.

Furthermore, out of all the past presidents of the Progressive Conservative Youth Federation, seven have no article at all, five have articles because they were subsequently elected to a provincial or federal legislature, and one has an article because of her subsequent prominence as a pundit, author and lobbyist. Thus, Marlowe's is the only article anywhere on Wikipedia which posits the presidency of the PCYF as its primary claim of notability; everybody else who's led the organization has an article only if they've gone on to do something more notable than merely leading a political party's youth wing.

And finally, it warrants mention that the original discussion was significantly skewed by sockpuppets with possible WP:COI issues.

As always, I'm willing to withdraw the nomination if someone can Heymann it up to a keepable standard with solid, reliable sources that meet 2012 standards of sourcing and notability. But as currently constituted, delete if such improvement isn't forthcoming. Bearcat (talk) 23:01, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 23:04, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom.Newmanoconnor (talk) 02:20, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:25, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - I agree that there is no "automatic" notability for the head of the youth wing of a political party. That the person is passionate enough about politics to get to that position indicates that they may end up in political office in the future, but until that happens, there should be no article. I can find no reliable sources providing significant coverage. There is this article but thaqt is a far cry from the sourcing we need for icnlusion. -- Whpq (talk) 17:00, 30 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.