308:, if only in the name of the most basic fairness and because nominating this article for the third time in three months is excessive when the two previous consultations showed strong consensus for keeping the article. The first consultation showed 7 keep and 0 delete (discouting the anonymous user who voted four times) and the second showed 10 keep and 2 delete. I understand there's no limit to this and people can merrily continue to put up the same article for deletion again, and again, and again, and get their point on their thirty-sixth attempt when they have exhausted everyone. I also understand that the nominator was acting in good faith and seems to not have initially realized that this particular case had already been discussed at length and settled. Note that I have no particular interest in this debate and before today I had never even heard about the city of Vaughan. Actually, on the general principle I would agree with the nominator's reasoning, if we were to discuss a general rule or guideline. The mere fact for someone to be or to have been a city councillor is not in itself much of a claim to notability unless it is accompanied by some notable elements. But at the present time, the choice of this particular article for target in order to make a point is especially ill-chosen and especially unfair. People have actually been doing work in good faith in application of the previous decisions on this very case. Changing the decision now on a whim would be a waste of time both for the people who did that work and for the participants to the AfD discussions and would be detrimental to the trust and the cooperative spirit of the community. Therefore, if someone feels like proposing in the appropriate forums a discussion for explicit guidelines on the matter, let's do that, it's a good idea. Then we'll act according to whatever guidelines will have been agreed upon and for all similar articles. But until then, let's leave this article alone, there is no reason to single it out. It has earned some respite.
621:: "perhaps instead of going through these AfD's every 3 months, we consolidate. We could get rid of the individual Vaughan Councilor pages and create one big Vaughan City Council page similar to Hamilton City Council, we could also expand that format, annotating the members names with short paragraphs detailing their previous career. There's even a Category for it Canadian City Councils. This probably isn't the place to have the discussion... but it could make everyone's lives a lot easier."
146:
indication. Anyhow, I happened to come across the name "pm_shef" on a talk page, clicked on it because it looked interesting, saw that said
Shefman wrote an article about another Shefman, looked at the article, surmised the relationship (and was proven correct), saw non-notability and a conflict of interest, and thus requested the AfD.
457:. The only reason this guy has a longer article than the others is because somebody who knows something about him took the time to write it, not because anybody thinks he deserves special treatment. So if you know something about Joyce Frustaglio and Linda Jackson and Peter Meffe and the others, write them up.
390:. This solution seems reasonable to the involved parties. It's too bad this all had to happen here on AfD: an example of when process fails us, maybe. It does seem a shame to lose all the information in this article, though, so I hope the article will simply be changed to a redirect rather than deleted.
145:
I'm not even
Canadian, nor do I live there, and it's interesting that you ascribe this to a personal motive, because that tells me there's something going on that maybe shouldn't be, 'especially' since there's seems ot be a whole group on WP concerned with Vaughan politics, if the other AfDs are any
491:
Whether city councillors deserve articles or not has been a point of contention on AFD, with decisions in both directions. But it's not within your authority to dictate how long of an article these councillors deserve or don't deserve; they either get as long an article as somebody feels qualified
239:
per precedent of prior AFD. And no, we shouldn't have a page for the
Council, as we wouldn't be able to properly talk about non-council activity in such an article. Also, there's no precedent for every member Vaughan Council either. Also, generally, people wishing to do a renom, really need to
431:
and he is a staunch
Liberal. Why do councillors Mario Ferri and Sandra Yeung Racco have two pages (before I shortened them today) and councillors Linda Jackson, Joyce Frustaglio, Peter Meffe, Tony Carella and Bernie di Vona have two lines? Because both Ferri and Racco are proclaimed Liberals, and
481:
Knowledge (XXG) does not have a maximum length restriction on articles. The only two choices available are "the article can be as long as it needs to be to cover what's encyclopedic about this topic", or "the article doesn't belong here at all". There's no provision for "this person can have an
107:(and I wouldn't be overly surprised if that one involved some of the same people). Although I understand that not everybody is convinced that city councillors deserve articles, actual AFD precedent has tended to favour the view that they do...and I'm less than eager to start up a debate again,
67:
This page should be deleted because it is a promotional page for a nn person. The top 3 Google hits for Alan
Shefman are: the same Shefman's home page for his company, the Vaughan Ward 5 homepage, and this article. It doesn't help that his son is the main content editor, as per history.
530:
If you're alleging that an administrator has behaved in a biased manner, you can directly address your allegations with them. Otherwise, you can kindly stop with the ad hominem attacks and start providing specific details about what specific content you're actually disputing.
482:
article, but they're not important enough to permit it to be longer than two lines". If they're not important enough to warrant whatever length of article can be written about them without dipping into trivia, then they shouldn't have articles at all.
273:
precidents, this is not a notable nor national office. Local officials are not inherently notable, and this person not notable for other reasons. Can anyone guess how many similar people there are in just
English speaking
167:. There's clearly some axe-grinding going on; for what it's worth, my interest in the discussion is limited to the fact that I'm a Knowledge (XXG) administrator who was involved in sorting all the bullshit out last time.
439:
To the admin reviewing this article, I plead with you - for the sake of objectivity, of encyclopedic integrity, remove this article and place it among the heap where over 5000 other councillors of
Ontario are confined.
670:(1)Political figures holding international, national or statewide/provincewide office or members of a national, state or provincial legislature; (2) Major local political figures who receive significant press coverage.
432:
everybody else is not; even Racco's spouse, Mario Racco, is a
Liberal MPP. And being a Liberal seems to be the criteria for receiving glorified, self-promotional encyclopedia listings in Vaughan. And help from
96:
814:
be deleting these, but redirecting them to the new amalgamated page... something about the license. So I guess whatever admin reviews this, if it could be kept please, so that we can turn it into a redirect..
423:
This man is NOT notable. The Mayor of
Vaughan has 2 or 3 sentences, though a veteran of Vaughan Council for 21 years; the local Councillor Alan Shefman, chosen in a by-election 13 months ago, has 2 pages.
648:
individual vaughan councillor articles (excluding the mayor) as well as candidate articles (which shouldn't be there in the first place), then I'll go along with that (since it was my idea anyways).
119:, if only on the grounds that there's no valid reason to revisit this yet again. And, frankly, I strongly suspect that the sole reason this was nominated at all was as a payback shot against
468:
No, Bearcat. The point is that these profiles should not be expanded. I don't think it should be deleted, however, I believe it should be scaled back to a couple sentences.
156:
104:
100:
828:
everyone has come to a consensus that all vaughan councillorsand candidates are to be redirected. Why is this still up? when all the others has been redirected--
453:
Then expand the other councillors' articles, sunshine. Nobody here has a responsibility to do the work for you; if you think something needs to be expanded, then
903:
The admins job is to decide on the consenus view when the proper time has elapsed, there is policy for this kind of thing, and WP policy needs to be respected.
199:-- perhaps instead of going through these AfD's every 3 months, we consolidate. We could get rid of the individual Vaughan Councilor pages and create one big
349:
227:, notability is good enough for me given positions with City Council, School board, library board, Human Rights League, and Ontario Commission on Whatnot. -
48:. Although there appears to be no overall consensus it looks to me as if the parties that are most interested feel that a redirect is the best compromise.
207:, we could also expand that format, annotating the members names with short paragraphs detailing their previous career. There's even a Category for it
736:
Ok again it looks like we have consensus for deleting this page and all councillor pages except the mayor, but including councillor information on
103:
was shut down due to an utterly absurd and out-of-control partisan bickering match that rather closely resembled what's beginning to unfold at
85:. I strongly encourage people to vote down this AfD as we are already in the process of adding the articles for other Vaughan Council Members.
845:
tags, which can be removed outside of a formal process. Anyone who is in agreement with the consensus can change their vote accordingly.
606:
have suggested one central page, like
Hamilton City Council, that should store all Council information. I have just created such a page:
551:
Basically, theirs two choices, either all incumbents and candidates articles should be deleted or all kept. No in betweens. I vote
17:
907:
890:
875:
860:
832:
819:
795:
784:
769:
744:
729:
713:
686:
652:
638:
584:
563:
535:
513:
496:
472:
461:
447:
414:
394:
370:
356:
336:
324:
312:
298:
278:
256:
244:
231:
219:
191:
171:
150:
135:
89:
72:
55:
725:
No claim of notability; council member for Ward 5 is not one. . I may well express the same opinion on the other articles.
344:
I am torn on the concept of city councillors being notable enough for articles, but it seems to me that any city larger than
842:
751:
52:
929:
36:
776:
I tagged the councillors Ohnoitsjamie missed, all vaughan councillors (except the mayor) have now been tagged for
928:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
754:. If there is a consensus, no further action will need to be taken and the pages will be deleted in five days.
49:
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
857:
766:
710:
683:
348:
should be entitled to pages for its councillors as no one would question the notability of members of the
887:
510:
469:
407:
204:
868:
829:
560:
387:
345:
200:
188:
160:
45:
83:
we have already agreed in the past that all members of Vaughan Council are entitled to Wiki articles
807:
163:
today by multiple brand-new editors) if you need background. See also past partisan foolishness at
871:'s continued blanking of a page currently undergoing AfD debate in contravention of WP policy.
320:, the last argument is fair. Two previous yes votes should settle the matter once and for all.
852:
847:
761:
756:
741:
705:
700:
678:
673:
635:
444:
228:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
777:
333:
321:
184:
665:
287:
270:
267:
737:
726:
629:
607:
603:
391:
367:
290:
and there is no evidence of any other claim to notability. Obina is right on the money.
791:
Count me in favour of the merger; it strikes me as a positive solution to the dilemma.
309:
291:
241:
187:
if it will end this endless debate on their no-name, non-notable city councillors. --
904:
872:
816:
792:
781:
649:
614:
599:
595:
581:
532:
493:
458:
433:
428:
411:
216:
168:
147:
132:
120:
86:
69:
61:
253:
164:
576:, maybe; Knowledge (XXG) precedent on that question has been mixed. Municipal
275:
353:
211:. This probably isn't the place to have the discussion... but it could make
155:
You'd be correct that there's something going on that shouldn't be. Review
81:
Fine, I have a conflict of interest here so I won't vote. That being said,
780:
and we can make the single council page. Glad this could be worked out.
97:
Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/Alan Shefman (second nomination)
598:
the author of this article and the son of the subject, along with
922:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
580:, however, absolutely do not merit encyclopedia articles.
492:
and able to write, or they get nothing. Them's the rules.
115:
gone through this process and survived. I have to say
157:
Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/Simon Strelchik
105:
Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/Simon Strelchik
841:
Only an admin can end the afd early. The others had
509:
Is their a process to remove biased administrators?
286:since city councillor is well below the levels per
39:). No further edits should be made to this page.
101:Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/Alan Shefman
664:As far as I can tell, fails these two applicable
932:). No further edits should be made to this page.
885:Can an admin do their job and delete this thing?
555:but if one is deleted then they all should be
8:
350:Legislative Assembly of Prince Edward Island
123:— there's no other conceivable reason for
644:If people would agree to the deletion of
44:The result of the debate was REDIRECT to
698:as per consensus on election talk page.
99:came down to a keep, after the original
750:I've tagged them all for deletion per
593:Is their consensus for the following:
18:Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion
7:
427:Why? Because Alan Shefman's son is
406:Please note continued blanking by
24:
752:Knowledge (XXG):Proposed_deletion
559:both incumbents and candidates.--
159:(and the constant vandalism of
1:
357:22:51, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
337:21:07, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
325:04:34, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
313:03:22, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
299:14:41, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
279:10:48, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
257:06:14, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
245:06:13, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
232:06:07, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
220:05:59, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
192:05:37, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
172:05:48, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
151:05:44, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
136:05:18, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
90:05:07, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
73:03:43, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
240:give a good new reason. --
949:
252:, per previous debates. -
908:21:01, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
891:20:48, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
876:18:29, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
861:04:28, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
833:04:21, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
820:00:10, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
796:00:06, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
785:22:19, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
770:21:24, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
745:20:12, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
730:19:39, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
714:04:28, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
687:18:59, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
653:16:33, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
639:07:22, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
585:06:41, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
564:06:38, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
536:06:24, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
514:06:10, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
497:06:00, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
473:05:33, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
462:05:02, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
448:04:45, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
415:01:47, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
395:14:15, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
371:16:48, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
56:22:19, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
925:Please do not modify it.
628:this page and add it to
32:Please do not modify it.
617:has to say about this *
209:Canadian City Councils
205:Hamilton City Council
111:on an article that's
388:Vaughan City Council
346:Prince Edward Island
215:lives a lot easier.
201:Vaughan City Council
161:Talk:Simon Strelchik
46:Vaughan City Council
808:user:TenOfAllTrades
50:CambridgeBayWeather
455:expand it yourself
408:user:70.29.239.249
365:per AfD precedent.
869:User:Eyeonvaughan
266:Non notable. Per
940:
927:
855:
850:
806:So according to
764:
759:
708:
703:
681:
676:
295:
203:page similar to
34:
948:
947:
943:
942:
941:
939:
938:
937:
936:
930:deletion review
923:
853:
848:
826:speedy redirect
762:
757:
738:Vaughan_Council
727:Septentrionalis
706:
701:
679:
674:
630:Vaughan_Council
624:We would then *
608:Vaughan_Council
293:
189:Dogbreathcanada
185:City of Vaughan
65:
37:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
946:
944:
935:
934:
917:
915:
914:
913:
912:
911:
910:
896:
895:
894:
893:
879:
878:
864:
863:
823:
822:
803:
802:
801:
800:
799:
798:
788:
787:
740:. Am I right?
735:
733:
732:
719:
718:
717:
716:
690:
689:
656:
655:
590:
589:
588:
587:
567:
566:
545:
544:
543:
542:
541:
540:
539:
538:
521:
520:
519:
518:
517:
516:
502:
501:
500:
499:
486:
485:
484:
483:
476:
475:
465:
464:
418:
417:
400:
399:
398:
397:
374:
373:
359:
339:
327:
315:
302:
301:
281:
260:
259:
247:
234:
222:
194:
183:to the entire
177:
176:
175:
174:
139:
138:
93:
92:
64:
59:
42:
41:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
945:
933:
931:
926:
920:
919:
918:
909:
906:
902:
901:
900:
899:
898:
897:
892:
889:
888:70.29.239.249
886:
883:
882:
881:
880:
877:
874:
870:
866:
865:
862:
859:
858:
856:
851:
844:
840:
837:
836:
835:
834:
831:
827:
821:
818:
813:
809:
805:
804:
797:
794:
790:
789:
786:
783:
779:
775:
774:
773:
772:
771:
768:
767:
765:
760:
753:
749:
748:
747:
746:
743:
739:
731:
728:
724:
723:Speedy delete
721:
720:
715:
712:
711:
709:
704:
697:
694:
693:
692:
691:
688:
685:
684:
682:
677:
671:
667:
663:
662:
658:
657:
654:
651:
647:
643:
642:
641:
640:
637:
633:
631:
627:
622:
620:
616:
613:Here is what
611:
609:
605:
601:
597:
594:
586:
583:
579:
575:
571:
570:
569:
568:
565:
562:
558:
554:
550:
549:Clarification
547:
546:
537:
534:
529:
528:
527:
526:
525:
524:
523:
522:
515:
512:
511:70.29.239.249
508:
507:
506:
505:
504:
503:
498:
495:
490:
489:
488:
487:
480:
479:
478:
477:
474:
471:
470:70.29.239.249
467:
466:
463:
460:
456:
452:
451:
450:
449:
446:
443:
437:
435:
430:
425:
422:
416:
413:
409:
405:
402:
401:
396:
393:
389:
385:
381:
378:
377:
376:
375:
372:
369:
366:
364:
360:
358:
355:
351:
347:
343:
340:
338:
335:
331:
328:
326:
323:
319:
316:
314:
311:
307:
304:
303:
300:
297:
289:
285:
282:
280:
277:
272:
269:
265:
262:
261:
258:
255:
251:
248:
246:
243:
238:
235:
233:
230:
226:
223:
221:
218:
214:
210:
206:
202:
198:
195:
193:
190:
186:
182:
181:Speedy Delete
179:
178:
173:
170:
166:
162:
158:
154:
153:
152:
149:
144:
141:
140:
137:
134:
130:
126:
122:
118:
114:
110:
106:
102:
98:
95:
94:
91:
88:
84:
80:
77:
76:
75:
74:
71:
63:
60:
58:
57:
54:
51:
47:
40:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
924:
921:
916:
884:
846:
838:
830:Eyeonvaughan
825:
824:
811:
755:
742:VaughanWatch
734:
722:
699:
695:
672:
669:
660:
659:
645:
636:VaughanWatch
634:
625:
623:
618:
612:
592:
591:
577:
573:
561:Eyeonvaughan
556:
552:
548:
454:
445:VaughanWatch
441:
438:
426:
420:
419:
403:
383:
379:
362:
361:
341:
332:per SimonP.
329:
317:
305:
283:
263:
249:
236:
229:Joshuapaquin
224:
212:
208:
196:
180:
142:
128:
124:
116:
112:
108:
82:
78:
66:
62:Alan Shefman
43:
31:
28:
322:Jameswilson
237:Speedy Keep
165:Susan Kadis
117:speedy keep
668:criteria:
604:Mangojuice
578:candidates
574:incumbents
572:Municipal
392:Mangojuice
368:Mangojuice
274:countries?
213:everyone's
127:to happen
109:especially
812:shouldn't
382:vote for
310:Asclepias
296:you know?
292:Just zis
271:WP:BLPand
854:itsJamie
763:itsJamie
707:itsJamie
696:Redirect
680:itsJamie
384:Redirect
143:Comment:
905:pm_shef
873:pm_shef
839:Comment
817:pm_shef
793:Bearcat
782:pm_shef
778:WP:Prod
650:pm_shef
615:pm_shef
600:MSJapan
596:pm_shef
582:Bearcat
557:Deleted
533:Bearcat
494:Bearcat
459:Bearcat
434:pm_shef
429:pm_shef
412:pm_shef
217:pm_shef
169:Bearcat
148:MSJapan
133:Bearcat
121:pm_shef
113:already
87:pm_shef
79:No Vote
70:MSJapan
666:WP:BIO
661:Delete
626:Delete
442:Delete
421:Delete
380:Strong
334:Ardenn
288:WP:BIO
284:Delete
268:WP:BIO
264:Delete
254:SimonP
53:(Talk)
867:Note
276:Obina
16:<
849:OhNo
843:prod
758:OhNo
702:OhNo
675:OhNo
619:Idea
602:and
553:Keep
404:Note
363:Keep
354:Jord
352:. -
342:Keep
330:Keep
318:Keep
306:Keep
250:Keep
225:Keep
197:IDEA
125:this
810:we
646:all
436:.
386:to
294:Guy
242:Rob
129:now
632:.
610:.
410:-
131:.
440:*
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.