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.
Does not meet the criteria for WP:POLITICIAN. No significant coverage in the media of Watson himself. West Eddy (talk) 11:01, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep former leader of a registered political party. Me-123567-Me (talk) 15:21, 25 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) 05:58, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As per WP:OUTCOMES#PeopleLeaders of registered political parties at the national or major sub-national (state, province, prefecture, etc.) level are usually considered notable regardless of that party's degree of electoral success. jlcooke
Comment: Possible conflict of interest: jlcooke is a known Green Party supporter. —Preceding undated comment added 21:05, 27 April 2012 (UTC).[reply]
Keep The fact that he was the leader of the GPNS is indisputable. And it doesn't matter that he was a remarkably unsuccessful leader and garnered almost no media attention: Leaders of registered political parties at the national or major sub-national (state, province, prefecture, etc.) level are usually considered notable regardless of that party's degree of electoral success.WP:OUTCOMES#PeoplePdacortex (talk) 04:05, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Any past consensus to "keep all leaders of political parties" has long since been overridden by Wikipedia's core requirement that biographies of living persons need to be sourced to the hilt or get canned; there is no "somebody might improve it someday" exemption for BLPs anymore. Keep if the article is improved by close; redirect to the party if it isn't. Notability is a question of the quality of sources that are or aren't present in the article, not a question of blanket "all X are notable" proclamations — if the sources aren't there, then an article does not get to stay. Bearcat (talk) 03:45, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep. I still think notability is thin here, but now we have sources to back it up. And before the nominator wastes his time, I am not now nor have I ever been a member or supporter of the Green Party (nor have I been Canadian, for that matter). UltraExactZZSaid~ Did 20:52, 1 May 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.