Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bob Kinnear

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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. --jonny-mt 05:52, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Bob Kinnear

Bob Kinnear (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View log)

Biographical article on the president of a labour union local. Currently in the news only because his local is in contract negotiations, which is his only reason for notability. Article has been a magnet for vandalism to the point that it has had to be temporarily deleted, stubbed, and now semi-protected. Risker (talk) 17:17, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Response - No, believe it or not. Apparently our mailing lists have "no-index" tags on them, although I will confirm with David Gerard. Risker (talk) 17:42, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Bob Kinnear has been a prominent union leader in Toronto for some time, and is notable for more than just a single event. There's no doubt that this page was a target for vandalism in the last week or so, but the proper solution to this problem is to fix it, not remove the page entirely. I should note that there's currently a discussion taking place about this page on WikiEN-l, where the recent vandalism was introduced in an extremely sensationalized manner. I suspect that certain people want to "make an example" of this page (for what cause I'm not certain), which doesn't always make for healthy and rational discussion. In any event, the problem has been remedied and there's no need to target the page further. CJCurrie (talk) 17:34, 29 April 2008 (UTC) with minor adjustments 17:45, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
  • He's notable for more than just the one event — the article was actually created in 2006. It looks like he's only notable for one thing right now, because User:Moreschi deleted and restubbed the old article for WP:BLP issues, but there's an extensive edit history hiding in the deletion log. I'll take a few minutes to review the edit history to see if there's any content that can validly be restored or not. So I guess I'm on the keep side. Bearcat (talk) 17:44, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Yes, it was created in 2006 when his local staged an 11-hour wildcat strike. There's a huge article about it, though heaven knows why; once again, a short-cycle news story that is worth (maximum) a paragraph in an article about the Toronto Transit Commission. I am still not seeing his notability here. There are at least a dozen more notable union leaders in Toronto, none of whom have articles; in fact, the president of the union itself doesn't have an article, nor does this particular local. It's kind of hard to be a notable president of a non-notable union local. Risker (talk) 18:21, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
  • I'll reiterate that Bob Kinnear is a notable public figure in Toronto. There's the potential for a decent and balanced bio here, and I hope to write it shortly. CJCurrie (talk) 18:36, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Writing a longer page doesn't necessarily improve the notability issue. Whatever notability he has is directly related to labour actions taken by his union local, one of which he had no control over (the 2006 wildcat strike). I could *almost* see an article on the union local, which has a colourful history, but not Kinnear himself. Risker (talk) 19:00, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep and expand. it needed to be stubbed because it was vandalised, presumably by opponents in the union. That's only the first step, building it up again properly is the second. We can protect our articles without deleting them. People come to Wikipedia for solid basic information, not just major historical figures. Heading a major city union locals are very likely to be notable --and sourceable, with the right facilities. DGG (talk) 18:14, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
    • Why are we engaging in random speculation about the identity of the vandals? This is exactly the kind of thing that is frequently mentioned as a problem with deletion debates. From the Wikipedia articles on the two strikes listed under the See also heading: "The shutdown left over a million commuters searching for alternative means of transport." (2006) "All bus, streetcar, subway and rapid transit systems in Toronto, Ontario, Canada, were shut down, leaving thousands of people stranded across the city." (2008) Even if you imagine that it's necessarily somebody with a personal beef, and I don't know why that would be important to determine here, the universe of possibilities is vast. --Michael Snow (talk) 19:07, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete - Canonical example of a marginally notable BLP that has, for a very long time (I reviewed the deleted revisions) had few or no folk watching it, until it became noticed because of persistent vandalism and POV pushing. Absent some commitment from more than one reliable editor here, to take ownership and keep it clean, it's an obvious article we would be better off without. Those voting Keep, are you personally committing to do so? If not you, then who? ++Lar: t/c 18:23, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm planning to expand this page shortly (I'm not able to do so at the present moment). The page was created as a stub some time ago, and was never given the attention it deserved ... but the proper remedy for this situation is to expand it, not delete it. CJCurrie (talk) 18:31, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm more than willing to keep it on my watchlist and check for vandalism. Hell, I'll keep it as a bookmark and check it every day just in case I miss something on the watchlist. It only takes a few seconds to check history for a new edit. The problem is that there are loads of articles that don't get much attention from regular Wikipedia editors, but get loads of attention from the general public, either via forum posts, word of mouth, newspaper reports, and so on. These articles often gets lots of edits, or, worse, a small number of bad edits, and just aren't ever noticed by most users. I've came across articles in the past, for example, that have had pretty blatant vandalism on them, that has been there for months. These articles are often borderline-notable subjects that would never survive an AfD, but were either not picked up at NewPages, or were tagged for speedy, had the speedy declined, and the tagger couldn't be bothered taking it any further. From that point on, how many people will have that article on their watchlist? Not very many. Hence, vandalism to those articles often goes unnoticed if not picked up by RecentChanges. There should be some method for regular, trusted users (for example, the same users trusted to not abuse Rollback) to view a live list of "least watched articles", which would sort all articles by number of those same trusted users watching an article, and display the ones watched least. The content on the Bob Kinnear article, in my mind, if picked up by the media, could have been seen as much worse than the Seigenthaler incident.
Rant aside, this appears to be a relatively notable person, so for me it's a weak keep. Dreaded Walrus t c 18:56, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for making the argument for deleting not just this, but all marginally notable BLPs (that don't have dedicated editors to keep them clean and free of detrius) so cogently. You have highlighted precisely the problem facing us. There are X thousand dedicated editors here (where X is a small integer, to be sure... maybe 3, maybe 5, maybe 9, heck, maybe 30 if we are lucky, but I doubt it) and 250 thousand BLPs .. with 5% of them currently carrying insufficient cite tagging... how many have a problem? Far too many. How many can be taken under the wing of some or several dedicated editors? Far too few. Please note: I have absolutely no doubt you mean exactly what you say and you will, if this article survives, do admirably at keeping it clean... But there are not enough editors to solve this problem one at a time. ++Lar: t/c 19:06, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
(after edit conflicts) An (old) example of what I was talking about would be our article on Neil Buchanan. Back in 2006, there was often vandalism and nonsense added to that article that went undetected for ages. Look at this version, for example. At least half of that article is nonsense (and doesn't appear in the current version), though much of it had been in place for months, and much of it stayed in place for many months after that. This vandalism stayed in place for four days, but when it was manually removed, much of the rest was not spotted. Indeed, the other edit made is modifying a hoax sentence. The bit about the jumper being alleged to give him "magic powers" was removed two months after insertion. Another bit, about him being a recovering alcohol addict, was added in late May, and removed in early July. And yet still, in July, much of the hoax information from the April version I linked earlier is still in place. This kind of thing happens all the time, but this article is an example that pops into my head due to having the article linked to on a forum I was a member of, a few months before I started editing Wikipedia. Dreaded Walrus t c 19:14, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
  • What section of WP:BIO does he fall under? Please describe in detail exactly why this union local leader, above all others, is notable. I cannot locate another similar biographical article anywhere on the encyclopedia, and I've been looking for a couple of days. Risker (talk) 15:12, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Basic criteria: A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject"; thus a verifiable and NPOV article can be written without OR. DoubleBlue (Talk) 16:03, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
  • One editor has found a single article specifically about Bob Kinnear in an independent source. I note that nobody has chosen to add it to the article; in fact, nobody has added anything to the article at this point. Risker (talk) 16:12, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
  • How many of them are primarily about Kinnear, and not about the labour action? Risker (talk) 16:20, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
  • I agree more activity would be better, but inactivity during an AfD is not uncommon. Carcharoth (talk) 16:23, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
  • "I cannot locate another similar biographical article anywhere on the encyclopedia, and I've been looking for a couple of days. " - Bob Crow is a similar article. Carcharoth (talk) 16:05, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Umm, no. Bob Crow is a national labour leader, not a local labour leader. Risker (talk) 16:12, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
  • I stand corrected. But you accept that some local leaders are notable enough for an article and that some national leaders are not notable enouh, or is being a leader of a national union inherently notable? For example, the national leaders listed at National Union of Railwaymen, going back to 1871. Should they all have articles? Carcharoth (talk) 16:23, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
  • I cannot think of a single local union president who would warrant an article simply based on his or her union work. What I could see is an article like CAW Local 200, which discusses the business and activities of the union local and lists its presidents. Incidentally, CAW Local 222, another local of the same union, has a lot more members, and is related to the largest employer in Oshawa. Note the absence of an article on its local president, which I feel is entirely appropriate. He may be locally significant, but not encyclopedically so. Risker (talk) 16:31, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
  • I would not object to merging to a new Amalgamated Transit Workers Union Local 113 article since he is known only for his union activities. DoubleBlue (Talk) 17:43, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Will this article do: Toronto Transit Commission personnel - which was created a few months ago. I have added the fact that Kinnear is the Local 113 president as of this writing. This article could use some beefing up and cleanup, but seems to include the relevant information that can be expanded upon. Risker (talk) 22:43, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
  • How does that address BLP concerns? You've proposed moving the stuff about the living person from a relatively high-profile article that people had stated an intention to edit and watch, to a low-profile article that will probably have less people watching, and may, in time, end up as bad as this one was. The real problem is not having sufficient people to review bad-faith edits, or, arguably worse, having such edits reviewed too quickly and insufficiently, leading to the degradation of articles over time. The real solution is either getting more people with clue to edit Wikipedia (though to do this you need to avoid alienating them when they are new editors), or restricting the volume of editing or article creation. Carcharoth (talk) 23:16, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Umm...you seem to have missed my point, Carcharoth. Kinnear is not notable and should not have a biographical article. He is the president of a union local. It is reasonable to identify him by name in that role in the article that discusses the union local, as is common in many other articles. There is no reason to go any further than that in the Toronto Transit Commission personnel article, or anywhere else. As the president of the local, he is the main media contact for obtaining the union position on various points; thus, his name shows up frequently in the paper. Consider him the equivalent of the PR spokesperson for a business, very few of whom would be considered notable enough for a WP article. I get more hits for my company's PR director than I do for Kinnear, and I can quite assure you he is not notable at all; for that matter, neither is our company president. There is nothing about Kinnear that is noteworthy other than his presidency of the union local; thus, a biographical article about him is essentially a coatrack proxying as an article about the union local, because all of the "reliable sources" discuss him strictly from that perspective, with the occasional bit of "colour". Risker (talk) 19:38, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
  • My point was not that he should be mentioned any more than in passing in that article (I agree that he should only be mentioned in passing) but that if certain people want to edit Wikipedia to say things about this person, then if they can't do that on the article about him, they will still attempt to say the same things in the TTC personnel article. They shouldn't say these things anywhere on Wikipedia, of course, but that just shows that this is never a good reason for deleting anything. Your nomination statement said: "Article has been a magnet for vandalism to the point that it has had to be temporarily deleted, stubbed, and now semi-protected". If Toronto Transit Commission personnel ended up suffering the same problems, would you advocate deletion for that article? Either delete based on non-notability, or clean up/watch/protect, based on editing history. Don't delete articles merely because they are a "magnet for vandalism". That is my point. If something is clearly non-notable, then delete on that basis. If something is borderline notable, then delete if there is vandalism and BLP concerns. If something is notable and getting vandalised, then clean up and watchlist. But I agree. Reducing the number of targets for vandalism on the topic of this person, is ultimately a good idea. So I'm going to !vote merge and protection of the redirect. Carcharoth (talk) 22:23, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep as multiple reliable editors have volunteered to maintain it in an un-vandalized condition. — CharlotteWebb 12:57, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
  • keep per CharlotteWebb and DGG. JoshuaZ (talk) 17:06, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete or Merge to TTC articles. Nothing notable outside of those articles. All the sources point to TTC and it's history as the really relevant subject. --DHeyward (talk) 22:47, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep - notable union leader. Reggie Perrin (talk) 19:24, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
  • I'm on the fence here: probably a weak keep, but we should keep the option of merging open for later if sufficient reliable sources cannot be found. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 23:20, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Smerge relevant information to Toronto Transit Commission personnel (and other relevant articles). Point the resulting redirect at Toronto Transit Commission personnel. Also, clean up the history, probably by deleting most of the revisions before the stubbing of the article, and protect the redirect to avoid future vandalism at that title. Carcharoth (talk) 22:28, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
  • The history has already been cleaned up (by Moreschi) shortly after this AfD was created. Dreaded Walrus t c 22:57, 5 May 2008 (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.