Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gary Gladstone

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. Tone 07:44, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Gary Gladstone (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)

Subject fails WP:SIGCOV as only one piece actually discusses the subject at length and even that coverage is WP:ROUTINE. Appears to be a page to promote the subject's candidacy in Canada's 2019 federal election. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:16, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:16, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:16, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 23:38, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Not notable. Alaney2k (talk) 12:42, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. As always, people do not get Wikipedia articles just for being candidates in future elections they have not yet won — the notability test for politicians is holding office, not just running for it, and the only other way he can qualify for an article before winning the seat is to show that he was already notable enough to have an article before he was even a candidate at all. But, naturally, that's not what this is demonstrating — this is saying and sourcing literally not a single thing about him that would have gotten him an article independently of the candidacy itself. So, as usual: no prejudice against recreation on or after October 20 if he wins the seat, but nothing here is a reason why he would already be eligible to have an article today. Bearcat (talk) 23:38, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • To be fair, it said a bit more when I nominated it, but the creator gutted it when I pointed out that most of the sources were primary or associated with the subject in some way. Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:11, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • OIC. But to be honest, even the older version wasn't substantive enough to tip the scales either. You already knew that, obviously, since you were the nominator here — I'm just restating it for the benefit of any other participants. Bearcat (talk) 01:04, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Welcome to election season in Canada everybody! Candidates are not inherently notable. If he wins a seat we can re-assess. Bkissin (talk) 17:40, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per above^ FUNgus guy (talk) 06:29, 23 September 2019 (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.