Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ann Bourget


 * 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. Lankiveil (speak to me) 07:39, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Ann Bourget

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Bit of an edge case, this one, so I thought it best to go for discussion to formulate a consensus one way or the other. The article, as it currently exists, is a WP:BLP of a former city councillor sourced only to a deadlink bio on her own political party's dead website, and thus not actually citing the reliable source coverage necessary to properly demonstrate her notability. The edge issue is that while Quebec City is not currently one of the elite group of "world cities" for which a consensus exists that their city councillors are considered notable enough for Wikipedia articles, it is large and internationally well-known enough that an argument could possibly be formulated that it should be added to that list — but it still isn't so large or prominent that we would have an obligation to do so, and even if a consensus were established for their notability, Mme Bourget still wouldn't be entitled to keep an unsourced article. I'm willing to withdraw this if consensus favours deeming Quebec City municipal councillors to be notable enough — but if the consensus opposes that, and/or if the article's sourcing can't be adequately improved to contemporary standards, then this needs to be deleted. Bearcat (talk) 23:51, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 23:51, 12 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete City councilors need a lot of coverage to justify having an article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:55, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Quebec-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:13, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:13, 13 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment: Ann Bourget wouldn't have had an article about her if she had been only an average city councillor. Her notoriety (in the ordinary meaning of the word) and her coverage by the media came from her being a prominent councillor and the leader of the main political party, and as such the best known councillor for a time. I don't know where the rules can be found about how Wikipedia awards the title of "world city", whatever that means. Québec may not be as notable as Topeka, but if being the first (as in oldest) town of Canada, a capital, and a U.N. World Heritage City does not count for being a notable town, well so be it. Anyway, non-notable city councillors of any city, notable or not (the city), should not automatically get an article in Wikipedia. Councillors should get an article only if they're notable enough personally, independently of the city. However, mayors and leaders of main parties of cities are often the object of independent material written about them. Of course, the editors of this article should have sourced it. I guess if nobody has the patience to source it now, this part of history will be left to fall into oblivion as if it never existed. -- Asclepias (talk) 03:33, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
 * For the purposes of determining whether a city councillor is notable enough for a Wikipedia article just for being a city councillor, the city's age is irrelevant to the question. Rather, it's a function of the city having a certain minimum size — while a city in the 500K range might qualify if there's a legitimate reason to believe that there's broad international interest in its local politics or if the article is really substantial and well-sourced, a city only gets an automatic presumption of notability for its city councillors if its population is in the millions (e.g. Toronto, Montreal, New York City, Los Angeles, Chicago.) That is, the city has to be so big that an individual councillor actually governs more people than the presidents of some entire countries. And, you know, if you really think that she's notable enough that she should qualify, what exactly is stopping you from contributing some sourcing improvements to get it up to scratch, instead of just idly lamenting the fact that other people haven't done so already? Bearcat (talk) 03:40, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't get your attitude. You're the user who said the article is not sourced. You're upset that agree with that? I'm not your slave. You can't force other users to work on an article not more than other users can force you. And you can't forbid users from offering informations, suggestions and comments in AfD for the sole reason that they are not editors of the article. If you so much dislike the participation of other users in discussions, ignore us. Your systematic unfriendly replies are annoying. -- Asclepias (talk) 04:38, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
 * You appeared to be arguing both sides of the fence, agreeing that the article is unsourced yet arguing that its deletion would constitute some sort of grand loss to Wikipedia nonetheless, and I was responding to the latter aspect of your comment. And I didn't force you to do anything, nor did I "forbid" you from commenting, either — if you think I did anything of the sort, you might want to adjust your sensitivity settings. My reply was not "unfriendly" or "annoying"; I completely fail to see how it was anything but polite and reasonable. People are allowed to reply to other people's comments in AFD discussions — that's part of the process. Bearcat (talk) 05:21, 14 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment If, as in this case, an article subject distinctly exceeds one part of a notability guideline (being the leader of a major group on the council rather than just a councillor) but falls slightly short on another (as Quebec seems to on the "world cities" criterion), I am prepared to ease up slightly on the sourcing requirements but still look for some evidence of non-local coverage in reliable sources. In this case, the corresponding article on French Wikipedia is better sourced than this one, with at least a couple of fairly definitely reliable sources, one reasonably non-local (Montreal rather than Quebec) but rather routine. Independently of this, there seem to be a couple of references by non-locals to a position paper on immigration to Quebec that she wrote while she was a councillor. This ends up falling just short of what I'd need to support keeping the article - but it is extremely close. PWilkinson (talk) 18:11, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:21, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

 
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar ♔  04:23, 1 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete for lack of sources. There's a single dead link to a non-reliable source.  Hence, it's effectively unsourced, which is fatal for a BLP.  If all the facts in the article were to be sourced to third-party independent sources, I would say keep it.  If it is ultimately kept, it should be trimmed of everything unsourced, going down to a single sentence if needed.  --Rob (talk) 19:32, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Merge and redirect to Renouveau municipal de Québec. Stuartyeates (talk) 21:49, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete - no sources, no BLP. Bearian (talk) 17:19, 10 May 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.