Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Suzan Hall

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 of the debate was no consensus. — FireFox (UTC) 10:55, 28 May '06

[edit] Suzan Hall

Is being a city councillor itself notable? It's close, but I'd say no. Weak delete. --Nlu (talk) 11:49, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. Not notable. DarthVader 11:55, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, this has been much discussed and it has been accepted for some time that city councillors are encyclopedic. We currently have 84 articles on past and present Toronto city councillors, and dozens for other cities around the world. - SimonP 12:04, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Can you cite some of that discussion? --Nlu (talk) 12:06, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Sure, look at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Giorgio Mammoliti, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Thompson, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Peter Milczyn, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Doug Holyday, Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Peter Hume, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dorothy Tillman, and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Frank Di Giorgio. Also I think articles like Howard Moscoe and Mike Del Grande prove that substantial articles can be written on these people. - SimonP 12:12, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

I think these discussions stand for the propositions that city councillors who have done notable things should be kept, not that all of them should. --Nlu (talk) 16:26, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

• Keep per SimonP. --Terence Ong 12:12, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
• Comment Are there no guidelines to solve this? The question must be: if councillors in general are encyclopedic, how big must the particular city be at minimum, for the person to be inherently notable? Medico80 13:47, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep above articles give precedent. I don't know how big a city has to be, but I think Toronto probably makes the cut. -- stubblyhead | ^T/_c 16:23, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Toronto is big enough to include its councillors. --Rob 18:34, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Rob, who put it quite nicely. TheProject 03:28, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. This article says nothing about what Hall stands for or what she has done. I am not against her having a page, but this page is poorly written, and doesn't go any deeper than her title and a plug to her campaign. If she is in any way notable, please state why she is notable. This page says nothing. --Cocopuffberman 03:33, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Delete. I visited www.suzanhall.com and I can not find one notable thing about her. She sounds like a nice person who is dedicated to her community. The only slightly notable thing about her is her title. Apparently, the writers of this page couldn't find out anything else worth noting about her. If every person with a political career or long title had a page on Wikipedia, the servers would fill up and there would be no room for history that is being made. --Cocopuffberman 03:40, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, Toronto and its major inhabbitants certainly is notable enough to warrent an article. I'm also slightly baffled at Cocopuffberman's "reasoning" for deletion. "This page says nothing." Is that not precisely what clean-up and expansion is for....? -Zero^Talk 12:40, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, Per SimonP, davidzuccaro 06:47, 27 May 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.