Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robin Buxton Potts

Add links
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 no consensus. I have not previously seen anyone use the MOS to argue for notability. If we as a community have decided to grant inherent notability to the city councilors of six Canadian cities, that ought to be a notability guideline, and should be clarified at the applicable notability guideline, which is NPOL. However, I'm not comfortable entirely setting aside the guideline as written, even if it currently represents an end-run around the notability guidelines. This discussion is unlikely to reach a policy-based consensus when policy is self-contradictory, and so I'm closing it as no consensus, explicitly without prejudice to future nominations, though it is probably worth sorting out the status of the MOS before doing anything further. Vanamonde (Talk) 02:02, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Robin Buxton Potts[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

Robin Buxton Potts (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:BLP of a city councillor, not properly sourced as the subject of sufficient media coverage to pass WP:NPOL #2. While Toronto is a large and important enough city that its city councillors are often considered notable enough, "often" is not the same thing as "always". It's not considered an "inherently" notable role where a person automatically gets to have an article as soon as you provide basic verification that she holds it, but a conditionally notable role where the inclusion test hinges on writing and sourcing some genuine substance about her work in the role: specific things she did in the job, specific effects her work had on the development of the city, and on and so forth.
The problem, however, is that Ms. Buxton Potts was appointed to council earlier this year to fill a vacancy only until the 2022 Toronto municipal election in a couple of weeks, and the council had its last official meeting of the entire term in July (just a few weeks after her appointment) and has essentially been in "caretaker" mode ever since, so RBP just hasn't had any substantive coverage of any specific accomplishments in the office.
The only WP:GNG-worthy source here is the same-day coverage of her initial appointment to the seat itself -- otherwise, all of the other footnotes here are primary or unreliable sources that are not support for notability at all, such as the city's own self-published certificate of her appointment and unreliable blogs. I wish there were more sourcing than there is, because she's my city councillor, but the sourcing just isn't there and I've tried to look for better.
She simply hasn't had the correct type or depth of coverage necessary to establish permanent notability yet. If she wins the different seat she's running for next week, then that obviously might change in the future, so obviously no prejudice against recreation if and when her political career can be sourced better than this, but she just doesn't clear the bar as things stand right now. Just being appointed to Toronto City Council is not automatically enough in and of itself, if GNG-building coverage about her work on city council is lacking. Bearcat (talk) 16:41, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

According to MOS:Canada#Municipal politics, Toronto city councillors are always considered notable just for holding office as city councillors.
It's unfortunate that theres only one or two good sources, but we have tons of articles on notable subjects/topics that are stubs. Probably a third of our articles on MPs/MPPs/MLAs are like this, with the only source being an article on the day which they took office, but again, they meet notability guidelines by virtue of holding office, not by how many sources we can find. —WildComet talk 18:08, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
MPs, MPPs and MLAs never lack for the existence of sourcing, they just sometimes lack for Wikipedians actually putting in the effort to write and source much more than "So-and-so is a politician who exists". Notability is based on the existence of suitable sources, not on whether they're all already in the article or not — so it is entirely possible for a person to pass WP:GNG even though our article about them fails to actually cite most of their potential sources.
So yes, it's true that in principle, most Toronto city councillors would pass NPOL #2 — but that's because they actually have the sourcing, not because they're handed an automatic inclusion freebie that would exempt them from having to have the sourcing. But the two or three temporary councillors who inevitably get appointed in the final few months before a municipal election to fill a late vacancy sometimes don't get the necessary volume or depth of coverage, given that council is actually in caretaker mode for a lot of that time. (And even when an appointed councillor does clear the bar, sometimes that's really just because they're a retired former councillor who already cleared the bar the first time, such as Joe Mihevc.) Bearcat (talk) 18:04, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 20:32, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Um... That French language source is an interview about garbage collection issues in Toronto in which Ms. Potts is quoted on that topic. Being interviewed as a city council member on a highly local issue is neither independent nor significant.4meter4 (talk) 02:23, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Interviews in which the subject is quoted giving soundbite on a topic are not support for notability; a politician's notability has to be supported by sources where she is the subject of the coverage, not just sources where she's speaking about some other subject. The problem remains that the only substantive coverage Robin Buxton Potts actually has is the initial one-day blip of "councillor appointed" on the day of her appointment itself, with no ongoing coverage of her work in the role because council is in caretaker mode and not really doing anything to garner coverage. Bearcat (talk) 17:37, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Fails WP:NPOL and WP:SIGCOV. No evidence of independent significant coverage.4meter4 (talk) 02:23, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep MOS:Canada#Municipal politics clearly says "City councillors are deemed notable just for being city councillors only in "major metropolitan cities"; in the Canadian context, present consensus has applied this only to Vancouver, Calgary, Edmonton, Toronto, Ottawa and Montreal." Nominator is attempting to move the goalposts. 199.7.157.121 (talk) 03:10, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I am not attempting to move any goalposts. Even in Vancouver, Calgary, Edmonton, Toronto, Ottawa and Montreal, a city councillor still has to pass WP:GNG on her sourceability in order to actually get a Wikipedia article, and still is not exempted from having to be the subject of any coverage about her work on council just because the article contains nominal verification that she held the role. Plus, for added bonus, I'm the person who wrote MOS:Canada#Municipal politics in the first place, which makes me the expert in what it does and doesn't mean. It's a notable role if the article is well-referenced, but not an instant notability freebie that overrides the requirement for the article to be well-referenced. Bearcat (talk) 13:26, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per MOS:Canada#Municipal politics. Djflem (talk) 11:24, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Which reads (bold mine):City councillors are deemed notable just for being city councillors only in "major metropolitan cities"; in the Canadian context, present consensus has applied this only to Vancouver, Calgary, Edmonton, Toronto, Ottawa and Montreal. This "exemption" exists only for the main municipal governments of those six cities themselves; it does not extend to smaller municipalities within their metropolitan areas (i.e. Ottawa's status does not extend to Gatineau; Vancouver's status does not extend to Coquitlam; Toronto's status does not extend to Mississauga; and on and so forth), and it does not extend to municipalities that were separate from the metropolitan city at the time the person held office, and were amalgamated into the city later on (that is, Toronto's status does not extend to pre-megacity municipal councillors in Etobicoke or Leaside or Long Branch, and on and so forth.) For any other city besides those six, a city councillor is permitted an article only if you can make a valid claim of notability for reasons beyond simply holding a city council seat, such as having held a more notable office or being reliably sourceable as having prominence well beyond their local area. Djflem (talk) 15:22, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    That's not in conflict with anything I've said in this discussion. Even in Vancouver, Calgary, Edmonton, Toronto, Ottawa and Montreal, a city councillor still has to pass WP:GNG on her sourceability in order to actually get a Wikipedia article, and still is not exempted from having to be the subject of any coverage about her work on council just because the article contains nominal verification that she held the role — they don't necessarily have to show that their GNG-worthy coverage has nationalized beyond their local media market in quite the same way that a non-metropolitan councillor would have to show, but they most certainly do still have to show GNG-worthy coverage. Bearcat (talk) 15:42, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    "deemed" notable? deemed?
    "exemption" exists? exemption?
    any "other" city?
    what? clearly in conflict, otherwise, what is the point of the entire paragraoh if notability is not "deemed", the person is not "exempt", or there is no difference from "other" cities?.Djflem (talk) 15:49, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Djflem (talk) 15:49, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    There's a massive difference. A Toronto city councillor merely has to pass GNG on their sourceability, while a city councillor in Burlington or Sudbury or Thunder Bay or Kingston has to be shown to have nationalized prominence expanding significantly beyond just their own local media market. Those aren't the same thing at all: the Toronto city councillor can rely almost entirely on Toronto media, while the non-metropolitan city councillor can't rely on their own local media without showing a considerably wider range. Bearcat (talk) 15:55, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    You have not answered the question. Why did you write the paragraph declaring "deemed" notability, "exemption", and difference of cities? As written, NONE of what you are NOW claiming is included in the paragraph. NONE. What is the point of writing it if it is NOT clear, which it's not. Djflem (talk) 16:12, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    City councillors in Toronto are accepted as notable just by virtue of having GNG-worthy media coverage in their local media market; city councillors in other non-metropolitan cities are accepted as notable only if they can be shown to have nationalizing coverage demonstrating nationalized prominence far, far beyond just their own city alone. That statement clearly explains both that other cities are handled differently than Toronto, and how and why they're handled differently than Toronto — and therefore both "difference of cities" and "exemption" have been fully answered by that statement itself. And I'd be interested to know exactly what definition of "deemed" implies to you that Toronto city councillors are automatically absolved of actually having to have GNG-worthy reliable sourcing to support their articles with. Bearcat (talk) 16:29, 25 October 2022 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Robin_Buxton_Potts&oldid=1118271500"