Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eli El-Chantiry

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 no consensus. —Kurykh 23:52, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Eli El-Chantiry

Eli El-Chantiry (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

The WP:BIO threshold is provincial level for elected councillors to merit an article. A city councillor is well under the bar. Delete view. Bridgeplayer 17:52, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Comment: Being a city councillor does not preclude satisfaction of WP:BIO. I agree the article needs more sources, however. Evouga 18:20, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - per nom.--Edtropolis 18:23, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete I agree that this falls below the threshold. Compare, for instance Arthur K. Snyder, who was also a city councilor, but for many years, in a larger city, and with much controversy. Brianyoumans 18:48, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. We've already decided that Ottawa City councillors are notable enough to have articles. That's why all of them do! -- Earl Andrew - talk 19:54, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Exactly who decided that all Ottawa city councilors are notable? Would that be the same bunch who put up articles on every elementary school in British Columbia? On the parish churches in Windsor, Ontario? Canada is a wonderful country, but I don't think Wikipedia needs all this Canadacruft. This level of detail is just excessive. Brianyoumans 02:02, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per precedent. City councillors of major cities certainly deserve articles, and every councillor in major Canadian cities like Ottawa and Toronto have pages. As a brief glance through Category:Canadian city councillors will show. - SimonP 20:01, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Comment - I notice that you tried a unilateral amendment to Wikipedia:Notability (people) that was smartly reverted. That underlines that city councillors are not considered inherently notable. The way forward is to take the issue to the talk page of that project rather than trying to establish notability through AfDs. At present, without reliable secondary sources, the article fails WP:V. Bridgeplayer 21:38, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

• Keep Councillors of cities of over 100,000 residents (which means major cities) are notable. The city population in this case is nearly 900,000 (metro area 1.2 million)--JForget 20:24, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

• Comment WP:BIO is clear - why should the standards be relaxed just for Canadian cities? Here in the UK every city and district council has over a 100,000 catchment. The options are either to consult on a broadening the standard or to establish notability through secondary sources. BTW you say "Councillors of cities of over 100,000 residents (which means major cities) are notable" - where is the guide line that says this, please? Bridgeplayer 21:27, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment. According to that, we can have articles on Nunavut's MLAs which represent 1000 people but Ottawa city councillors that represent 50,000 people are bad? -- Earl Andrew - talk 03:04, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

• Keep Councillors for the largest cities are notable enough to deserve articles. Davewild 21:36, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep There are disagreements on this point, but I believe pages such as this should be retained. CJCurrie 22:04, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Merge with Ottawa City Council. WP:BIO: "Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage. Just being an elected local official does not guarantee notability." Unsourced claim to being a 'prominent' local citizen is insufficient demonstration of notability. Canuckle 23:35, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
  • After four years on council and two years as a Wikipedia bio, his three-sentence claim to fame can easily be accomodated on the current-members section of Ottawa City Council. I think that's the best way to handle these city councillors of questionable notability: a brief description on the organization's page. If it gets too lengthy, then they get their own standalone bio. Canuckle 20:35, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
    • Nope. No other councillors have their content on that page. -- Earl Andrew - talk 20:44, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
      • And who said that we can't take 5 minutes to add 3 sentences on each current city councillor on that page? Is it written somewhere that short lists of people can't describe them? Vancouver at least lists their party affiliation. Canuckle 03:36, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Key politician in a major/capital city, therefore practically guaranteed to receive significant news coverage which should be added to the article (which is still declared a stub) - therefore notable. Deletion would also be discriminatory given that all Vancouver and Toronto councillors have articles. Dl2000 01:26, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep It's non-sense to think about deleting this article. He's a very well known politician in the Ottawa region, with much enough news coverage (which, in my opinion, should not even be a factor). Also, I agree with what everybody has said precedent. --Deenoe 01:36, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 10:04, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 10:04, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Notability of local elected officials depends in part on the size of the locality; it is not automatically established but is also not automatically precluded. JamesMLane t c 15:07, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, plenty of current and historical news coverage. John Vandenberg 04:01, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per John Vandenberg. GreenJoe 17:04, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. We have to draw the line somewhere, or every Tom, Dick, and Harry is going to have his own Wikipedia article. Unless they've done something to make the news outside of their hometown, city councillors should not have their own article. RedRollerskate 17:47, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete and delete the others. I don't think they are ever mentioned in news outside their own city. If any are, it will be because of other notability. I thought I was an inclusionist, until I heard these arguments--the other ones have it -- every councillor in a city over 100,000 are N,--known in the Ottawa region -- and so on. I do not think most NYC councillors--my own city-- are notable outside of NYC, and I wouldn't include them for even the largest cities automatically. The guy for my district has no notability outside, or at least none demonstrated. A failed Congressional candidate, like many of them elsewhere. I tried 6 others, and they are noteworthy mainly for the politically biased WP articles, most positive, some negative. DGG 03:04, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
  • You're not an inclusionist if you are part of the minority who supports an article deletion. BTW, New York City councillors are definitely notable. One doesn't need media attention outside their city to be notable. -- Earl Andrew - talk 04:00, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Hey, everyone has different views on different topics. I tend to have a higher bar for local articles. WP is complicated. DGG 02:40, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. If the subject attains some notability in the future, he will have his article. --Stormbay 03:28, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
• In past AFD debates on city councillors, the principle was generally accepted that while city councillors are not automatically notable, city councillors of major metropolitan cities such as Toronto, New York City, Vancouver and Ottawa are notable enough. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Common outcomes ("people" section). If you want to shoot for a new approach, go right ahead, but until there's an actual consensus to revise the existing precedent, laid is played. Keep. Bearcat 02:30, 27 June 2007 (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.