Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sylvia Watson

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 keep. v/r - T P 15:07, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sylvia Watson

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

non-notable local councillor and non-chosen candidate for parliament Night of the Big Wind _talk 06:48, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As WP:OUTCOMES#Politicians already makes clear, councillors in large, internationally famous metropolitan cities whose populations reach into the millions column are considered notable enough to pass WP:POLITICIAN — and, in fact, Toronto is listed right in that guideline as an example of a city whose councillors qualify. Further, the article is already more than reliably sourced enough to get past WP:GNG anyway — and further media coverage can quite easily be added. Accordingly, keep. Bearcat (talk) 08:16, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:Outcome is just an essay, not a rule, policy, guideline or whatsoever... Night of the Big Wind _talk 08:23, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Familiarize yourself with WP:ONLYESSAY. Precedents established by past AFD practice are "rules, policies, guidelines or whatsoever" until such time as you can make a convincing case for why the standing consensus should be overturned, or why this particular person represents some uniquely non-notable exception to a standing consensus. Bearcat (talk) 08:34, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Calm down please. But err, are you familiar with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Richard Honeyford? Night of the Big Wind _talk 11:22, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Honeyford's only failing, such as it was, was the paucity of actual reliable sources. This article has many already. Bearcat (talk) 16:14, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This councillor and councillors for city of Toronto are notable. Many verifiable news sources. EncyclopediaUpdaticus

(talk) 12:24, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This article has been around since 2005. What has changed recently to suddenly make it eligible for deletion? Ottawahitech (talk) 12:08, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think someone is fishing to see whether people care about these articles. Looks like they do. EncyclopediaUpdaticus (talk) 20:05, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, I just think that local councillors are plain not notable by just being local councillor. It should not make a difference if you are a local councillor of Toronto, Kilrush or Groningen (city). Night of the Big Wind _talk 20:31, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I also do not agree with Wikipedia's way of determining a person's notability. I personally could not care less if some impotant people have written about him/her - what matters more is how many people recognize the subject. A councillor in a big city is recognized by many more people than a councillor of a township with a population of 300.

However, since no one at wikipedia cares how I view this matter, I resign myself to the established wiki-traditions. How about you, NOTBW? Ottawahitech (talk) 07:39, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My name is not Don Quixote, but I do not give up easily. We built an encyclopedia, not a collection of data. Night of the Big Wind _talk 09:24, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds to me like you do not agree with current guidelines/traditions. But is this the right place to change the rules of the game? Just asking - I have no idea how this is done? Ottawahitech (talk) 12:50, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In so far that I think that the rules of the game must be level. Apply the same rule in every case in the same way, not with special custom-made exceptions based on arbitrary numbers. Who decided that Toronto town councillors were notable? The whole community or just a bunch of Toronto-editors/a project group? It is just as senseless as to declare notable every Palestinian attack on Israelis, every ship over 100 feet, every secondary school, every place with more than 2 inhabitants and so on. One day, that collection of senseless data will start backfiring on Wikipedia because it often lacks quality and/or importance. Night of the Big Wind _talk 14:25, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, precedent holds that the top leaders of major cities are notable. Honeyford shouldn't have been deleted. Nyttend (talk) 14:58, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Bearcat. I'll add that the Honeyford article can be re-created once proper sources are added. CJCurrie (talk) 23:19, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 15:10, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 15:10, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Per reliable sources already in the article that establish notability of the topic. Northamerica1000 (talk) 06:07, 21 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.