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. j⚛e decker ^talk 00:07, 10 August 2014 (UTC) reply

William Hawryluk (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)

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

WP:BLP, relying on a single source (table of elections results) that cannot confer notability, of a person notable primarily as a perennial candidate for office; the only other claim here is the unverified guess that he might have been the leader of a political party. Neither of those claims actually pass WP:NPOL on their own merits, and there's no real sourcing here to get him over the WP:GNG bar as a substitute. Delete. Bearcat ( talk) 01:03, 2 August 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Manitoba-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 02:13, 2 August 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 02:13, 2 August 2014 (UTC) reply

• Delete. "He campaigned for federal, provincial and municipal office several times, without ever coming close to being elected." That pretty much says it all, unless there's some sort of exceptional basis for notability. -- Yamla ( talk) 14:31, 2 August 2014 (UTC) reply

To be fair, I think the primary basis for the article's original creation was "might have been the party leader" — we did once accept the leadership of political parties, regardless of the party's fringiness or mainstreamness, as "inherent" notability in its own right. Under WP:NPOL as it stands now, of course, we don't do so anymore if the reliable sources aren't there to get the person past WP:GNG on their own steam — and of course the "might have been" part was actually a problem all along. Bearcat ( talk) 20:15, 2 August 2014 (UTC) reply

• Delete no significant coverage in reliable sources. Fails WP:GNG, fails WP:POLITICIAN. Possibly, but not likey, of local interest. -- Bejnar ( talk) 14:34, 9 August 2014 (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.