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. Juliancolton (talk) 23:06, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Marty Burke (Politician) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

Fairly well written article about a candidate for political office, however the main purpose of the article seems to be to promote this person. As a candidate for a major party he gets some local news coverage, however if not elected his long term notability is in serious doubt. Should be re-added only if and when this person actually is elected. Travelbird (talk) 08:25, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:42, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:42, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:43, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Agreed, this self-promo article is sourced primarily on the subject's own website or from actual interviews with him. Re-create article if elected, and take a fine tooth comb to it. Ryan4314 (talk) 15:10, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry - do you mean Keep or Delete? Peridon (talk) 22:04, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I !voted "Delete", a sock puppet altered my !vote here Ryan4314 (talk) 23:01, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:CRYSTAL and WP:POLITICIAN. Being a candidate is not a source of notability. Nothing else there that would merit an article. Don't think I'm knocking him - he's had a worthwhile life and career. It's just not what gives notability by Wikipedia's standards. Peridon (talk) 19:39, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep He has made significant contributions to more than one area and will have a high profile in the next election. name 15:22, 21 February 2011

(Note: This is the editor's first edit) --Hammersoft (talk) 21:35, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please look at those two policies I linked to. Being a candidate is not notable - here. It's our field and our ball, not what's in your dictionary. Peridon (talk) 20:21, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: Page is independent of the subject, and does not engage in soapbox editorializing. Merely states chronological order of events. TheCanuckGeneral 15:33, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(Note: This is the editor's second edit) --Hammersoft (talk) 21:35, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep As a military official and high-profile candidate in the upcoming Canadian federal election, this individual is notable in more than one area. [[User Glewis04/Glewis04 15:58, 21 February 2011

(Note: This is the editor's first edit) --Hammersoft (talk) 21:02, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment to all new accounts editing here This isn't decided on political standards of notability, or definitions in dictionaries. Look at WP:POLITICIAN - "Just being an elected local official, or an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability...". If you want this page to survive, stop ignoring what I'm telling you and read the policies. Then make surew the article fits those policies. I personally couldn't care about whether Marty Burke has an article or not. I won't be voting for or against him as I am a UK citizen (having had a father who WAS a Canadian citizen, incidentally). I do care that articles fit the requirements. Single Purpose Accounts tend to be counted less important in these discussions - especially when they don't address the issues. Over to you... Peridon (talk) 21:31, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's also not a head count - it's based on discussion. Peridon (talk) 21:32, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Fails WP:POLITICIAN as he is yet to be elected and isn't the leader of a major party. Also fails WP:GNG. None of his military medals are enough to make him notable, nor are any of his other achievements/experiences. Also is very WP:CRYSTAL considering an election hasn't even been called yet (and not that he would be notable even if one had been called). Ravendrop 22:06, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• delete all of the current sources appear to be primary sources and the pictures reek of being clipped from a candidate mailing brochure. Wikipedia is WP:NOTADVERT. Active Banana (^bananaphone 23:17, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete without prejudice for recreation if this person is elected, or otherwise comes to prominence. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:37, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete -- for want of notability. If he is elected then he will qualify for an article. Lovetinkle (talk) 00:19, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Multiple sources given and does not promote individual: merely states chronological events. User talk:samuraisnoopy 11:59, 21 February 2011

(Note: This is the editor's first edit) --[[CharlieEchoTango]] 06:36, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, fails WP:POLITICIAN. [[CharlieEchoTango]] 06:37, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Dbrodbeck (talk) 14:40, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Does not meet WP:POLITICIAN notability criteria. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 19:11, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Blatant delete While it is an obvious fail of WP:POLITICIAN, I'm not as concerned with that as others here. What I see is an article where all but one of the references are to youtube or the candidate's own web site. The one other reference points to an opinion article writing by the candidate himself. This page blatantly screams self promotion. Also, the blatant sockpuppetry demonstrated here on this AfD is sickening. Were I as immature, this sort of behavior would motivate me to vote against this candidate for office. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:18, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per the usual outcomes and guidelines for politicians. In Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gail Goode, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bruce Blakeman, and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jason Plummer (politician), these precedents ended up in deletions. Only very well-known, statewide/provincial-wide political candidates are sometimes kept, such as Harry Wilson (businessman) and Sharron Angle are sometimes kept. The subject of this article is standing for for a single riding. Bearian (talk) 22:02, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete If I had seen this, I would speedy delete for blatant spam. . I think such candidates of major parties for national roles are notable, though the consensus does not yet agree with me. I suggest that accepting such positions as notable might lead to more neutral articles, rather than leave them to give written by press agents and advocates of the person's election.e . But even if they were accepted as notable , I would delete this and write a new article, rather than leave something as promotional as this in the article history.` DGG ( talk ) 00:01, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am very surprised by this comment coming from a sysop. This article does not nearly qualify for speedy deletion. There is no blatant advertising going on. The text is broadly factual, and is conform to NPOV. What gives the apparence of promotion is 1) an editor with a conflict of interest, which shows in the very poor sourcing of the article (primary sources) and the addition of pictures (although it doesn't really have to do with POV), 2) the socking going on in this AfD.

COI is not ground for speedy deletion, and I say again, the text of the article does not have a promotional tone; as far as I can see, there is no weasel words and puffery. The same article without these 'sources' would be perfectly fine as a start-class article, if the subject were notable (which it is not, at this time, thus my delete vote). [[CharlieEchoTango]] 00:38, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep There is no way in hell that this article is promotional. I also agree with the keep voters above. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 04:41, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Article has too many photos for it's word count. Contains a completely unnecessary (also obscure) photo of the subject at a cenotaph saluting. In encyclopaedic terms this illustrates nothing other than he respects the war dead. It does not convey any biographical significance, we know what he looks like, we know he was in the military (the orphan photo already shows this). Ryan4314 (talk) 20:23, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • • Photo with an orphan, photo with the war dead, photo with prominant politician .... we do seem to be missing a photo helping an old lady cross the street. Active Banana (^bananaphone 02:58, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete without prejudice if he does run in the next election and gains sources then recreate the article. --Guerillero | My Talk 04:43, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as not notable and lacking third-party sources, although I strongly disagree with the suggestion this could be G11ed (because promotional as the references are, the content itself is acceptable). sonia♫ 09:03, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, of course. Clearly fails WP:POLITICIAN. He is neither elected nor the the subject of independent WP:RS. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:14, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Unsuccessful political candidate who fails WP:POLITICIAN AND WP:GNG. Kittybrewster ☎ 09:04, 27 February 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.