Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dave Braden

:{{la|Dave Braden}} – (View AfDView log{{int:dot-separator}} [http://toolserver.org/~snottywong/cgi-bin/votecounter.cgi?page=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Dave_Braden Stats])

:({{Find sources|Dave Braden}})

WP:BLP of a city councillor in a city not large enough for its city councillors to pass WP:POLITICIAN just for being city councillors. In addition, while the article does cite sources, nearly all of them are primary or unreliable ones, and the few that pass muster are not enough to make him more notable than most other city councillors. For an extra bonus, the article contains several unverifiable WP:NPOV violations (e.g. "Mr. Braden is a problem solver who applies innovative thinking to many of the challenges facing all Canadians"), and is edited so rarely that it still asserts that he will run in an election that took place three years ago. (That candidacy doesn't get him over the POLITICIAN bar either, as he didn't win the seat and people don't qualify for articles on Wikipedia just for being candidates.) Delete. Bearcat (talk) 18:54, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 19:55, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:59, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:59, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:59, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:59, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:59, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

• Delete This is not "Ontariopedia" and we do not need articles on every city councilor in the province. It almost feels like we have such.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:37, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

::No, we're not even remotely close to that. People trying to create articles on city councillors who don't pass our notability rules as written are a problem that exists everywhere — Ontario does not have a higher volume of such articles being attempted than California or Texas or Connecticut or Yorkshire or Leicestershire do. (There might be a slight difference in how much you're aware of them, since as a resident of Ontario who actively works with categories I frequently throw a batch at AFD all at once, when necessary, instead of just nominating one isolated case and not noticing 15 other AFD candidates at all, as might happen elsewhere — but trust me, these exist everywhere and not just in Ontario.) Bearcat (talk) 16:58, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

::: ..........and that is a problem, how, exactly?!?! Carrite (talk) 15:45, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

::::City councillors anywhere outside of major, internationally famous metropolitan cities are almost never a topic of even the slightest interest to anyone outside of the councillor's own city — and because of that, are very nearly impossible to adequately monitor for WP:BLP compliance. I've come across many biographies of city councillors where editors with an agenda have inserted unsourced and WP:NPOV-violating personal criticism, and that criticism has survived in the article for months because the person wasn't a topic of broad enough interest for any responsible Wikipedians to actually notice that it was there. That fact is just one of the many reasons why the standard has long been that a municipal councillor normally only qualifies for an article if you can make a credible case that they're a topic of much broader than usual interest to a national or international, rather than exclusively local, readership — such as serving on the council of a major metropolitan world city, or somehow achieving substantial recognition and fame well beyond the city limits of their own home cities (e.g. by emerging as a nationally recognized spokesperson on a political issue). Bearcat (talk) 17:12, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

• Keep - Politicians are the one category of biographies to whom GNG is generally not applied; instead a Special Notability high bar is frequently used, giving automatic passes to elected members of national and provincial assemblies, tending to give easy passes to national and provincial party leaders, and dealing with unelected politicians harshly on a case by case basis. Elected members of city councils are a grey area, with those of major metropolitan areas almost always kept while those of tiny towns usually treated as self-serving promotion. And so here we have a bio that is in the grey area of the grey area, an elected city council member from a mid-sized city. My opinion is that we should keep this one and here's why: it's a well done piece, it's a well sourced piece, and Wikipedia is better off with the piece than without it. Ignore All Rules, Use Common Sense. Carrite (talk) 15:45, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

::Nearly all of the sources here are primary or unreliable sources. Which makes it a "well-sourced" piece how, exactly? Bearcat (talk) 17:13, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

• Strong Delete, fails WP:POLITICIAN and WP:GNG. A bunch of primary and unreliable local sources do not make a person notable, not to mention the promotional tone of the article ("Mr. Braden is a problem solver who applies innovative thinking to many of the challenges facing all Canadians."). Requiring WP:IAR in the current case does not make any sense except WP:ILIKEIT. Cavarrone 12:40, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
• Delete. Generally only councillors in very large cities are accorded notability. Hamilton does not count as such. -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:46, 30 June 2014 (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.