Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tom Murray (politician) (2nd nomination)

:{{la|Tom Murray (politician)}} – (View AfDView log{{int:dot-separator}} [http://toolserver.org/~snottywong/cgi-bin/votecounter.cgi?page=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Tom_Murray_(politician)_(2nd_nomination) Stats])

:({{Find sources|Tom Murray (politician)}})

While this article was kept in a prior discussion back in 2006, Wikipedia's inclusion rules and content standards have evolved significantly in the eight years since, and are now much stricter than the ones that permitted it at the time. Consensus has since determined that city councillors don't meet WP:POLITICIAN, except in a very narrow range of internationally famous "world" cities in the millions population range (thus excluding this city) — and the sourcing isn't up to contemporary standards either. Even though I argued "keep" the first time, by 2014 wikistandards it has to be deleted. Bearcat (talk) 20:32, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 20:32, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:35, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:35, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

• Delete this is local ordinary politician, based on past outcomes and in accord with the nomination. As noted in other, concurrent nominations, we are not a directory of local officials. Bearian (talk) 17:21, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
• Keep - This has already been kept at AfD once... 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 tolerably well done piece, it's a tolerably well sourced piece, and Wikipedia is better off with the piece than without it. Ignore All Rules, Use Common Sense. Carrite (talk) 15:34, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

::It's a poorly sourced piece — and since consensus can change, the fact that it was kept once before (eight years ago, as I pointed out, under a much looser set of content standards than those that apply in 2014) does not mean it's entitled to be kept forever without significant improvement. And Wikipedia is not better off with than it is without biographies of people who aren't topics of broad interest to a national or international, rather than exclusively single-city local, readership — such an article is not viably maintainable for WP:BLP compliance if it doesn't attract a broad enough readership that vandalism or unsourced POV criticism can be caught promptly. Bearcat (talk) 17:32, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

• delete fails notability guidelines for politicians.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:53, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
• Delete. Councillors in very large cities may be notable by virtue of their office, but Hamilton is nowhere near large enough to qualify. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:03, 2 July 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.