Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Merle Terlesky (2nd nomination)

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. Vanamonde (Talk) 04:57, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merle Terlesky

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Renominating, believing standards of Wikipedia (and me) have improved since 2007. This is a fairly typical example of a political candidate who has never held office and activist who has not attained any position or status of note. I understand there's a clear consensus to delete (or merge) political candidates who's only substantial coverage is of their unsuccessful campaign (even if they technically meet WP:GNG). Outside such campaign coverage, the best story is sourced to BC Catholic via BC Christian News, which is not an independent reliable source, but is promoting one of their own. I don't think we should give an article to everybody who's church wrote about their "coming to Jesus" moment in great detail. I do understand the GNG argument for keeping this, but that sets a very broad precedent for unsuccessful political candidates, as most candidates get some decent coverage. Rob (talk) 03:38, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Rob (talk) 03:38, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 03:41, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I !voted keep at the last AFD (under my previous username of Sarcasticidealist), but my views have evolved. This is, at best, a marginally notable individual, and is exactly the sort of abuse-magnet BLP we need less of around here. Steve Smith (talk) 16:35, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Good point about abuse-magnet. The creator of the article had a clear bias against the subject, as you can see in the early edits, on the talk page, and the first afd comments by them. The creator's version of the article actually had a large amount biographical detail (more than current version) that was almost entirely unsourced. That's a reason I support outright deletion, not a merge/redirect in this case (unlike other candidate articles, where we merge to the last election for office). Once you get rid of the attacks and the self-promotion, there's actually little left. --Rob (talk) 21:35, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not pass WP:NPOL as an unsuccessful candidate and does not pass WP:BASIC, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 21:39, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Our notability standards for politicians have evolved significantly since 2007, so the rationale under which an article may have been kept in 2007 has no bearing on whether it's still appropriate in 2020 or not. As it stands, this article is referenced 60 per cent to primary sources (raw tables of election results, the self-published websites of directly affiliated organizations, etc.) that aren't support for notability at all, and 40 per cent to routine local campaign coverage of the type that every candidate in every election can always show — so nothing here establishes that he has any claim to being appreciably more notable than the norm for unsuccessful candidates for office, which is the bar that unsuccessful candidates have to clear to merit Wikipedia articles. And he's not nearly high-profile enough to adequately control the very legitimate "abuse magnet" problems noted above, either: just because we may not like a person's actions or statements is not a legitimate reason to malign them in Wikipedia's editorial voice as some past editors of this article have attempted to do. Bearcat (talk) 16:55, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete ~~she~~he may have met our anemic and almost non-existent standards back in 2007. Since then we have come to realize that we need a little tighter standards, and ~~she~~he clearly does not meet any of our present inclusion standards.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:34, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

John Pack Lambert: While I agree with you in the result, your choice of pronouns makes me wonder whether you actually read the article. Steve Smith (talk) 19:22, 29 July 2020 (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.