Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Thompson

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was NO CONSENSUS.

I count ten keeps, two merges, nine deletes, two ambiguous, and an abstention. Contributors are reminded to explain their reasoning, even if they think it obvious. Absent a consensus to delete, the article is kept. —Korath (Talk) 15:36, Mar 1, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Michael Thompson

This article stub reads: "Michael Thompson is a Toronto city councillor. [...] He has a BA in Economics from Concordia University." 400 google hits. [1] Does being a councillor in a city the size of Toronto (pop. 2.5mil) make one inherently notable and worthy of inclusion Wikipedia? GRider\^talk 22:34, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• On general principles, yes. It'd be nice if there could be some expansion. Keep Lacrimosus 22:49, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• I'm going to go with delete. Mayors of major cities are notable, but not everyone on any governing council. I suppose we'll have the city councillors for Glenville, New York too? Even if this article is expanded it'd likely be mundane boring information about how many kids he has and where he grew up. Maybe throw him onto a list of some sort, like with Chicago aldermen. -R. fiend 23:59, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Second that motion. Delete as per R.Fiend. Radiant! 12:21, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment. Er, that's a bit of a specious comparison. Toronto is a city of three million people; Glenville has thirty thousand. Several of its streets are notable enough for articles (Yonge Street, for instance). That said, I do believe that city councillors need to have something besides their office to give them notability. Involvement in major policy or controversy, extremely long service, etc. Delete. (unsigned by TenOfAllTrades [2])
    • I realize it's not a perfect comparison; my point was where do you draw the line? At least with mayors you can make a pretty good claim that major city mayors are notable outside of their cities, certianly Guilliani, Bloomberg, Barry, Daly, etc. are, and you can argue that if a mayor isn't known outside his vicinity then he shouldn't have his own article. But councillors are never known outside of their city (perhaps there are a few exceptions), so we can't use the same criterion, or, if we do then we don't include any, which is I guess what I'm proposing. Maybe put them on a list. -R. fiend 17:12, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable enough. Megan1967 00:24, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, large-city councillors are notable. Meelar (talk) 02:17, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)
• No vote, but this raises an interesting issue. Where do we find the bottom line as far as city size goes for something like this to descend into unnotability? BenSamples 04:43, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • This is arbitrary, of course, but how about this: if the city itself warrants more than one article, then the major may be notable enough to get his own. If not, mention him on the city page (unless he is notable for some other reason). Radiant! 12:21, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)
• Move to a list. There's nothing interesting here but the fact he's on the council for ward 3. Make a list under a government of Toronto article. Then, any councillors actually notable for something more can have articles wikilinked from there. Wolfman 05:04, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Agreed (although I should point out that his article is linked from just such a list at Toronto City Council). Linking to such a list seems to be a standard part of Canadian provincial capital's info boxes. Most, like Edmonton City Council, have the sense to not automatically link all the names. For an encyclopedia intended to cover the entire universe for all of time, people who spent a few years as a city councillor/councilperson I believe are not inherently notable. Niteowlneils 19:52, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Keep --Spinboy 20:19, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Keep- SimonP 22:34, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - Councillors are worthy of aticles. Earl Andrew 23:55, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Toronto councillors play a significant role in Canadian politics. CJCurrie 00:45, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• I've created a Toronto community at Wikicities. If the general consensus on city councillors is that they're not notable enough for Wikipedia, then advise me before any change is made so I can transwiki. Note precedent may be set by Chicago aldermen also currently under VfD. Bearcat 01:04, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. ComCat 02:47, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. No reason to delete it. --Andylkl 11:25, Feb 19, 2005 (UTC)
• Comment City councillors are not worthy articles if they do not establish notability. Did he do anything notable? If not, I go with delete (Imagine if I coulda create articles for each city counsillor in Canada...) Ana Jessica 16:54, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete unless he has done something over and above serving in local politics. Rossami (talk) 04:23, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - David Gerard 23:54, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. See criteria for inclusion of biographies. --Pjacobi 00:55, 2005 Feb 21 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable enough. &mdash Linnwood 07:26, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and expand Let's give this one a chance to grow. Thompson is an up-and-coming guy. Likely to be around for a while and do bigger things.Kevintoronto 23:35, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Wikipedia is not paper. City councillors are notable enough, especially for large cities. --Deathphoenix 04:48, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page..