Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marguerite Ceschi-Smith

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 delete. If CJCurrie (or anyone else) would like the article userfied so work is not lost, please let me know. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 15:14, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Marguerite Ceschi-Smith[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Ceschi-Smith was a city councillor in Brantford, Ontario, a city not large enough to confer notability on its councillors (as per WP:NPOL, WP:POLOUTCOMES, and MOS:CA#Municipal politics).

I found no coverage of Ceschi-Smith in any news sources other than WP:ROUTINE coverage in local papers. Madg2011 (talk) 18:56, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:14, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:14, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This was created (not by me) at a time when WP:NPOL was considerably looser about the notability of local political figures than it is now — technically, the notability claim here wasn't so much her role as a city councillor but her role with the Federation of Canadian Municipalities, but being on the board of directors of an organization isn't a free notability pass anymore either. The depth and breadth of coverage shown here don't pass what we now require for a person at this level of significance: even the FCM work is sourced only to local media in the city where she was a municipal councillor, and not to any evidence of wider media attention for it (and for a role of national scope, the lack of nationalized coverage does argue against deeming her notable for it.) So it was a good faith creation at the time, but Wikipedia's standards have been considerably tightened up over the years and it doesn't pass the test anymore. Bearcat (talk) 19:46, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:05, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I created this article in 2010, and I can confirm that Ceschi-Smith's involvement in the FCM was what persuaded me of her notability. I've always regarded this as a borderline case, and I won't particularly object if the article is deleted now. (Ceschi-Smith did receive some national coverage in the early 2000s for her work on brownfields – here and here – but I'll acknowledge this probably isn't enough to justify the article on its own.) CJCurrie (talk) 01:49, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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.