Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Robertson (Canadian politician)

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. - Mailer Diablo 08:32, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] David Robertson (Canadian politician)

• Delete. Unnotable municipal candidate for 2006 Toronto municipal election. Never been elected. Fails to meet WP:BIO criteria. Atrian 01:07, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

OK, so he was elected in Etobicoke, a minor suburban GTA district. Atrian 15:41, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

• Weak delete. fails WP:BIO in the literal sense, but has more notability than the average afd bio. (|-- UlTiMuS 01:59, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete for failing WP:BIO for being merely an candidate as the highest archevement. If new (previously unknown) information about this person surfaces then I will be happy to reconsider. --WinHunter ^(talk) 02:47, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. He has already been a city councillor in Etobicoke (a former municipality which was merged into the new city of Toronto) and chair of the Etobicoke Board of Health. TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 03:34, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep per TruthbringerToronto. Wiki consensus says elected (or formerly elected) city councillors in major cities such as Toronto are notable. He also would have received a significant amount of press coverage in his lifetime. He would therefore also pass WP:BIO under "major local political figures who receive (or received) significant press coverage". CindyLooWho 05:03, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: Was elected in Etobicoke pre-merger not Toronto. I've heard of him only cause I saw one of his signs near William Osler Health Centre, not because of press coverage -- Samir धर्म 10:30, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
    • The fact that his 13 years as Councillor ended a few years before the official merger doesn't mean anything to me. The six merged municipalities were all unofficially considered by GTA residents to be part of Toronto for decades before the actual merger. The spirit of the Wiki consensus is that "big city municipal councillors pass the WP:BIO test". He was a big city councillor - just as North York, Scarborough, (etc...) city councillors were. CindyLooWho 15:25, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
      • What "wiki-consensus" are you talking about? If you mean WP:BIO, it says: Political figures holding international, national or statewide/provincewide office or members of a national, state or provincial legislature. are to be included. Not municipal councillors. If you mean Wikipedia:Deletion policy/Local politicians, no consensus was ever reached -- Samir धर्म 00:05, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
        • CindyLooWho is correct that actual AFD precedent has traditionally permitted city councillors of major metropolitan cities such as Toronto, Ottawa, New York City, Chicago or San Francisco, while generally going against councillors in smaller cities. Precedent, of course, isn't the same thing as policy, so this isn't necessarily binding in all circumstances — and in this case, because pre-merger Etobicoke is in a bit of a grey area as effectively both a smaller city and Toronto at the same time, either precedent could be invoked with equal validity. That said, I'm personally more inclined to keep on the metropolitan precedent. Bearcat 19:15, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, meets WP:BIO criteria. --Terence Ong _{(T | C)} 10:21, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
• Changed to delete. --Terence Ong _{(T | C)} 08:37, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete pandering for votes for the upcoming election! All it needs is the "I'm Dave Robertson and I've approved this message" tag at the bottom. Nice guy, but a ward councillor for Etobicoke is *not* notable. Yet. -- Samir धर्म 10:25, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
• delete. Electioneering. Where's your objectivity gone???? The subject is no more than a politician of a minor conurbation, however you look at it. It's a major stretch to suggest that Etobicoke city council has the same status as Toronto municipal council, even though it is now merged into Toronto, a decade on. That was then and this is now. He may have generated press coverage, but its significance needs to be proven. Without press coverage, all politicians are dead. "Significant" per WP:BIO means "well above the average for a person in his position". Ohconfucius 22:02, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Insufficient coverage by third-party sources per WP:V. --Satori Son 23:30, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, no assertion of notability, unverifiable. --Terence Ong _{(T | C)} 08:37, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: Although all opinions expressed here should be considered, I think it should be pointed out that there are 5 users here who can be identified as being from Canada and who would likely have a much, much greater understanding of what 'Etobicoke' really is, it's population size, the number of people that an Etobicoke city councillor would represent (the real deciding factor in my mind), and the city's pre and post-merger relationship to and within Toronto. Of those 5 users, the opinions expressed are currently 3 keeps and 2 deletes (one of those deletes being the nominator). BTW, I don't know the exact number of people that a former Etobicoke councillor would represent, but it would be in the tens of thousands - not anything like 1,000 which would be a 'small city' BIO-unworthy councillor in my opinion. CindyLooWho 04:55, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

FYI, Wikipedia is a global creation. All articles should meet this standard and not be judged on some colloquial local standard. Suttungr 14:53, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: To give a better idea, Etobicoke would have had over 320,000 citizens at the end of Robertson's era. If there were, say, 6 councillors (the same amount they have on the current Toronto city council), that would mean he was representing 53,333+ people. If there were 8 councillors, that would equal 40,000+ constituents. I doubt the old city of Etobicoke would have had more councillors than that (if anyone has the actual number let me know). Combined with the city's officially-unofficial position within Toronto, those are big city level representation numbers that I think qualify for keep under AFD precedent. CindyLooWho 05:51, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: It is possible that there may be a partisan interest in the Canadian votes ;-). I don't think the save/delete debate should hinge purely on the numbers of people represented, as this ignores the electoral system in place, and also the qualitative element of the importance of minor conurbation vs a major city. Right now he is a minor figure, but it would be a lot more difficult to deny the subject a page should he win his contested seat. Ohconfucius 07:52, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

• Comment nah, there's no partisanship in Canadian municipal politics... out of curiosity, does anyone know who the Toronto municipal councillor was who made it through Vfd? -- Samir धर्म 10:59, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

• Comment:Samir is right in that, on the municipal level, Canadian politicians do not run under a party banner. However, many politicians do have a known history supporting one or another federal/provincial party as does this one (a fact that I only know from reading his Wiki page). I'd just like to point out that I live in Toronto but not in Etobicoke, I do not know Robertson personally and I am neither a supporter or a non-supporter of the party that he supports outside of the municipal level. I am voting for keep here based on unbiased grounds so if there is a "partisan interest in the Canadian votes" its not coming from me. Also, I never said that 'number of people represented' was the only factor. It is a deciding factor for me because, as someone who lives here, I already know that the former city of Etobicoke was (for an intents and purposes) the city of Toronto (so he already meets the 'big city' criteria in my mind). Pre-merger, 70% of all city services (police, ambulance, transit, etc) in Etobicoke were provided through Toronto. Suttungr, my judgement is not based on some "colloquial local standard". Having City of Toronto police and ambulances on your streets and TTC busses on your streets (along with a TTC subway line below them) means you live in Toronto. Etobicoke was far more Toronto than it was Etobicoke and an Etobicoke city councillor would, in a way, be just as much a Toronto city councillor as they would have a degree of power over those "Toronto"-wide services. CindyLooWho 15:16, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

• I was referring to your reference to voters you identified as Canadian - these being somehow worth more than non-Canadian votes. Wikipedia votes are co-equal, by my count it's 8-3 in favour of deletion (Strong keep, doesn't count as double). That being said, none of your points has anything to do with David Robertson. Let the article stand (or fall) on his merits, not on the relative importance of Etobicoke. Suttungr 16:18, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

• 1. I didn't count 'strong keep' as double. 2. AfD is not a vote. Majority does not necessarily win. If 5 people say delete and back it up with poor or no reasoning and 1 person says keep and backs it up with very solid reasoning, keep can "pass". Regardless, as AFD precedent has already said that 'big city' councillors "pass" and should not be deleted, that is what I am basing my case on. I believe non-Canadians are very unlikely to have sufficient knowledge of Etobicoke/Toronto to know that Etobicoke is and was part of Toronto (a big city) and therefore, as a past concillor, the Robertson page passes under AFD precedent without needing to provide any more citation of notability regarding Robertson as an individual. Also keep in mind that AfD etiquette suggests Wikipedians should "consider not participating in a AfD discussion if a nomination involves a topic with which you are unfamiliar." Although the issue might look clear cut to non-Canadians, I have pointed out that the people who presumably have stronger knowledge of the specific subject matter (not just general AfD policy as everyone here has) generally find this page to be in a very grey area re: deletion policy and currently are slightly supporting 'keep' over 'delete'. I don't think there is anything wrong with pointing that out. CindyLooWho 18:16, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. As per Ohconfucius, remove article now, restore when he becomes a (current) Toronto councillor, if ever. Suttungr 14:50, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete until he's on Council, then reconsider a new article. Far as I'm concerned, candidates for any position who aren't already in one should not have articles, unless they have another reason for notability. Even after election, I have issues with anyone but the mayors of major metropolitan areas having articles, but that's just me. Tony Fox (arf!) 16:38, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

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.