Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dr. Bob Hilliard

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. Sandstein 05:54, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. Bob Hilliard

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

Clearly does not meet the notability guideline as per WP:POLITICIAN Mr. No Funny Nickname (talk) 19:06, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. —Mr. No Funny Nickname (talk) 19:09, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. —Mr. No Funny Nickname (talk) 19:09, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I do not think this violates the notability guideline as per WP:POLITICIAN. That allows for articles on unelected politicians insofar as they meet certain notability criteria. The subject of this article has been included in reliable news media, in more than a trivial mention.Rhadamanthys.Mann (talk) 19:17, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The only news article listed as a source talks about his nomination as an NDP candidate.Mr. No Funny Nickname (talk) 19:21, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Adam DeVita as an example.Mr. No Funny Nickname (talk) 19:23, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

True, the article discusses his nomination as NDP candidate, but I don't see how that in itself fails the test of a reliable source external to the Wikipedia article addressing the subject in some degree of detail. I consider also Hilliard's public positions, namely as past-president of the Canadian Paediatric Society. But if this is all negated by the view that election candidates' coverage falls under WP:BLP1E then I understand your position and the content is perhaps best suited under a large list of candidates, as with Ontario Liberal Party candidates, 2011 Ontario provincial election.Rhadamanthys.Mann (talk) 21:48, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If election coverage is not suggestive of WP:BLP1E, then I would think the article is best kept.Rhadamanthys.Mann (talk) 21:48, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I had speedied a previous version of this article, which didn't even have the one newspaper article as a source but was otherwise identical. As noted, candidates for office are not notable just for being candidates; with rare exceptions for candidates who generate an unusually large volume of news coverage, a candidate for office is only entitled to a standalone article if he would have qualified for a standalone article independently of standing as a candidate, by virtue of having garnered substantial media coverage for his work as a doctor before he ran for office. And if you have to rely mostly on references which do not meet our standards for reliable sources (i.e. his profile on the hospital's website or his profile on the party's website, both of which fail to be independent of him), then that's a sign that he isn't sufficiently notable to be one of those rare exceptions — one article in the Town Crier doesn't cut it for media coverage. He may be (and in fact already is) listed in Ontario New Democratic Party candidates, 2011 Ontario provincial election, but this article as written does not demonstrate that he qualifies for a standalone article under Wikipedia's rules. Delete; albeit of course without prejudice against recreation if he wins in October. And don't mistake this for a partisan thing, either, because I'm as loyal a New Democrat as you're ever likely to find on here (or pretty much anywhere) — and it's also worth remembering that our notability rules are not a comment on his worth as an individual or as a candidate; they're strictly about the quality of the article. Bearcat (talk) 19:24, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Wikipedia is not for electioneering. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 23:16, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to Bearcat for a comprehensive explanation. I support the deletion of the article based on the explanation of the protocols. I take issue with Mr. No Funny Nickname's analysis as I find it incomplete. I also don't consider this to be a biased "electioneering" article. But given Bearcat's analysis, it seems the article is best deleted, with the substantial information to be found solely in Ontario New Democratic Party candidates, 2011 Ontario provincial election.Rhadamanthys.Mann (talk) 06:23, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Unelected politician, clearly fails WP:POLITICIAN. Seems like article is used as political promotion, WP is not a soapbox. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 16:39, 8 September 2011 (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.