| Revision as of 08:11, 9 August 2006 editShayl (talk | contribs)5,910 editsm removing fair use image(s) per Misplaced Pages fair use policy #9; see here for reasoning, Replaced: 20px|NDP logo → , us← Previous edit | Revision as of 21:41, 24 March 2022 edit undoMalnadachBot (talk | contribs)11,637,095 editsm Fixed Lint errors. (Task 12)Tag: AWBNext edit → | ||
| Line 4: | Line 4: | ||
| Note: If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to re-nominate an article for deletion, you must manually edit the AfD nomination links in order to create a new discussion page using the name format of ]. When you create the new discussion page, please provide a link to this old discussion in your nomination. --> | Note: If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to re-nominate an article for deletion, you must manually edit the AfD nomination links in order to create a new discussion page using the name format of ]. When you create the new discussion page, please provide a link to this old discussion in your nomination. --> | ||
| The result of the debate was '''KEEP'''. Discounting the sock puppets, there are 10 keep votes and 2 delete votes. ] | ] 06:55, 11 November 2005 (UTC) | The result of the debate was '''KEEP'''. Discounting the sock puppets, there are 10 keep votes and 2 delete votes. ] | ] 06:55, 11 November 2005 (UTC) | ||
| ===]=== | ===]=== | ||
| The ] was irreparably tainted by partisan political attacks. I've closed it and am resubmitting on procedural grounds for a clean, untainted discussion. My own preference in the original debate was to keep, but as this is a procedural nomination this time, I will not cast a vote. However, in light of what happened in the first discussion, I will lay down the following: '''unsigned anonymous votes are explicitly forbidden this time out.''' ] 09:10, 5 November 2005 (UTC) | The ] was irreparably tainted by partisan political attacks. I've closed it and am resubmitting on procedural grounds for a clean, untainted discussion. My own preference in the original debate was to keep, but as this is a procedural nomination this time, I will not cast a vote. However, in light of what happened in the first discussion, I will lay down the following: '''unsigned anonymous votes are explicitly forbidden this time out.''' ] 09:10, 5 November 2005 (UTC) | ||
Revision as of 21:41, 24 March 2022
- 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 of the debate was KEEP. Discounting the sock puppets, there are 10 keep votes and 2 delete votes. — JIP | Talk 06:55, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
Alan Shefman
The original debate was irreparably tainted by partisan political attacks. I've closed it and am resubmitting on procedural grounds for a clean, untainted discussion. My own preference in the original debate was to keep, but as this is a procedural nomination this time, I will not cast a vote. However, in light of what happened in the first discussion, I will lay down the following: unsigned anonymous votes are explicitly forbidden this time out. Bearcat 09:10, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
- Keep, somewhat notable politician. Cleduc 09:16, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
- Keep per Cleduc. —Cleared as filed. 09:20, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
- Keep - combination of what he's done, puts him over the fence barely. --rob 10:14, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
- Keep per Cleduc. - Sensor 13:42, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
- DeleteNot notable, posted by Alan Shefman’s son (pm_shef) with an attempt to use as a political tool, use to pursue his political agenda and to use as advertising for his so called company. Does not meet the criteria to be an article, most high-power or high-profile position he held was/is as city councillor in a small city which I understand does not meet the criteria, in addition he was only a city councilor for a very short period of time (less than a year). Position as a “director” within government is even a lower-power or lower-profile than the city councilors position as at any given time there are over 200 people with a directors title. Appears to have false information posted. No other councillor posted from such a small city. User:eyeonvaughan 5 November 2005 (Note: User's second contribution ever under this username.)
- Having an article in Misplaced Pages is hardly a formidable political tool. Cleduc 00:55, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
- Weak keep This guy is not very notable, but the article is not PoVish and most or all of its info is verifiable http://www.city.vaughan.on.ca/vaughan/council/ward5_profile.cfm FRS 18:22, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
- Weak keep Vaughan is becoming bigger and bigger, so maybe it has reached the point where its councillors are notable? -- Earl Andrew - talk 20:23, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
- Keep. Notable civic politician. --YUL89YYZ 23:39, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
- Delete as non-notable. He is only a city councillor. -- Kjkolb 00:20, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
- Delete city council men are not notable --JAranda | watz sup 02:02, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
- Keep all city council members, aldermen and other elected officials are inherently notable.--Nicodemus75 06:35, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. All city council members, aldermen and other local elected officials are not inherently notable, even within their own jurisdictions. --Calton | Talk 00:34, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
- I think precident for most city councillors (e.g. consensus to delete) precident agrees with you. But I think there is more basis for keeping than just an "auto-keep" for councillors. Keeping this person is no precident for keeping all city councillors (as Bearcat properly said in the last AFD, but was drowned out due to noise) . --rob 01:11, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
- Keep. A number of semi-notable positions, including national ones, add up to be sufficient. Chick Bowen 03:50, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. not even close to be notable Sweet-as-suger 05:41, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
- This account was created today, with a high sock-puppet index. Cleduc 08:05, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
- Doesn't count anyway I think, as he has not got a significant numebr of edits?--Alicejenny 08:16, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
- This account was created today, with a high sock-puppet index. Cleduc 08:05, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
- Rapid Keep Inaccuracies and POV in an article are grounds for fixing it, NOT deleting it. Should remain if he is in any way notable. A quick Google and reading of press-coverage shows he clearly is - or at least more so than many individuals with articles. I would imagine that anyone intereted in the politics of this region would find this article (once it is fixed) a valuable resource. Arguments addressing anything other than notability (e.g. identity of editors) do not bear on deletion.--Alicejenny 08:13, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
- Delete--64.231.173.130 09:02, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. per eyeonvaughan--Westernriddell 06:52, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
- Possible sockpuppet; user's only contributions to date have been on AFD votes. Bearcat 07:06, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
- I prefer seeing city councillors in a group article like Vancouver City Council, say Vaughn city council, 2003-2006 which could include major background notes (like serving on the Vaughn school board - relevant to city council) as well as council activities. Unless, the councillor is notable for doing something outside the council, like David Cadman winning a UN peace prize. So...um...vote. --maclean25 10:35, 10 November 2005 (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.