Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Anber


 * 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 delete. There are intelligent arguments on both sides, and ultimately it came down to the numbers. Chick Bowen 18:14, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

David Anber
Not notable

Delete Does not meet WP:BIO criteria: is not a political figure holding international, national or statewide/provincewide office, or a member of a national, state or provincial legislature. A junior wing of a party is not notable. HistoryBA 18:55, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per above. Eusebeus 09:01, 27 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep I added David Anber after his term on the Canadian Alliance National Council had come to an end. Many Canadians were impressed with the work David did as a National Councillor.

National Council, for those of you who don't know, was the highest governing body of the party - a National board of directors of the 2nd largest political party in Canada (at the time).

Elected at age 21, David proposed the resolution, which Council approved, that gave the leader Stephen Harper the constitutional authority to move ahead with the merger process of the Conservative Party.

Not only was that merger highly newsworthy in Canada, but it led to the conditions which brought the Conservative Party to government, ironically on David's birthday this year.

Moreover, David has published many articles in the National Post (a Nationally read newspaper in Canada) as well as the Montreal Gazette. From the latter publication are quotations in this article on the subject of former prime minister Paul Martin.

I am not suggesting that he's highly renown, but in the spirit of Wikipedia, he qualifies as a young Canadian who is so immersed in politics, at such high levels, that someone may reasonably want to learn about him. That's what Wikipedia is for.

Finally, some of you might wonder why I have not submitted any other articles. Well, David was the first I had planned to submit and there were a few other names from their involvement in the Canadian Alliance who I was going to post, but I never got around to it. CLEAR POLI SCI JUNKIE 03:12, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Delete He simply isn't notable. We wouldn't include every member of the council. The accomplishments listed seem relatively slight. Two letters to the editor, a motion passed at council to support the premise that the party was built upon (and which user 24.43.87.250 noted was an ongoing process in the article). As for his age, the McGill link in the article indicates that his acclamation resulted from the party's lack of a following in Quebec, where all candidates were acclaimed. In any event his young age doesn't seem to justify inclusion. I understand that the two "keep" votes know him and I'm sure that he's a nice guy but I think that it would be unusual if this article was kept. --JGGardiner 17:08, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep I think that we should keep this article because it meets some basic thresholds for notoriety. We have to remember that Wikipedia is not just a place for VERY famous people but also a place for people of marginal importance if they have held a major political role, published in wide circulation or taken part in noteworthy events. I know History BA has been on a recent crusade of delete-campaigns, but we need to remember the following: Wikipedia would not be where it is today if every borderline case was deleted. Thankfully, Wikipedia has this information available for people who might want to know about a few "below the surface" details about the Unite the Right process in Canada. 24.43.87.250 16:23, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per JGGardiner and HistoryBA.  Ardenn  03:51, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete Not even a merge, in this case. CJCurrie 03:51, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. Just not notable.  There are young Conservatives who have done encyclopedia-worthy things, but "proposing the resolution that gave Stephen Harper the constitutional authority to..." ain't one of them. -Joshuapaquin 18:09, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, for reasons stated above. --Skeezix1000 21:10, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep Very interesting that nobody is speaking to the criteria for inclusion. A person doesn't have to be very famous to remain on Wikipedia, but people of minor importance might be notable if they have met one of wikipedia's conditions. Reading from Junkie's reasons above it appears as though Mr. Anber held a Senior position, in a National party. That on it's own meets wikipedia's standards. Second, it is stated that Mr. Anber has made contributions to Canadian newspapers with wide circulation. If that is true, that also meets wikipedia's standards. Does anybody have further information on Mr. Anber's contributions? Third, the Conservative Party creation was one of the most significant political stories for years in Canada. Anybody who had some unique role (from the big players to the smaller ones) in starting, continuing, etc such an event is IMO notable. Brittania1 21:13, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
 * delete non-notable bio, WP does actually have standards, requirements, of notability, and these are not met here Pete.Hurd 05:37, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Doesn't meet WP:BIO - pm_shef 17:36, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Just a comment because I've already voted. I'm not sure if this really is the appropriate place to say this but I would take any opportunity to promote Wikipedia. I've noticed that there are a number of new users who are interested in keeping the article, particularily Canpolijunkie who created the article and user:24.43.87.250 who I know has spent a lot of effort on it. And I see that Britannia1 has taken an interest here and perhaps decided to move from a WP reader to an editor. Yet it seems as though the article is headed for deletion. All three of these users have made articulate, reasoned and detailed comments along with your votes and I really hope that this doesn't turn you off of Wikipedia. It really is a wonderful project and it truly is for everybody, just like the slogan says. Unfortunately it is the nature of Wikipedia that our first experience as editors is a often negative one. I just hope that, whatever the vote outcome, you guys can give it a chance and see the way things work around here and hopefully you will all stick around so that we can all work together at improving the project. We don't always agree but there is definitely a place for everyone here. Once you get used to the process and the other editors I'm sure that you will find many more positive than negative experiences here. If David Anber has created an interest that has created three new articulate and energetic editors, then I'd like to thank him for that. And thanks for the space to everyone else. --JGGardiner 19:55, 30 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep per junkie and britania. I actually think David Anber is a complete idiot from my few encounters with him. I also think the merger was a terrible thing and that Stephen Harper is bad for Canada -- that said it was definitely historical and people who played a role in it will be relevant and will have a certain timelessness in 10 or 100 years from now. 137.122.26.128 18:19, 1 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Despite the fact that a note was left on my talk page by one of the article's proponents requesting my input since I had previously done some minor edits to this article but hadn't AFD'd it, I'm not personally convinced of notability here — but like most other Wikipedia editors, I have to admit that there are times when I couldn't always be bothered to actually do the AFDing. I've learned to be especially cautious, in fact, with detailed articles about young guys who give off the impression of thinking they're a lot more notable than they really are; I can usually hear their army of sockpuppets lining up a mile away. Bottom line, for me, is that I just don't see how he's encyclopedia material yet. He's not an elected politician, and even as a backroom boy he has yet to reach the level where the general public would recognize his name (like a Warren Kinsella or a Tom Long.) He's just your run-of-the-mill young party activist who's not really all that notable right now. If he keeps his record of achievement up, he'll probably be encyclopedic soon enough — but he's not there yet. Delete. (And this isn't a partisan concern; I voted to delete Richard Diamond and Cory Pike, too.) Bearcat 00:31, 2 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Abstain, since I'm obviously in a conflict of interest. I'm not going to weigh in with a "vote" per-se, but I will make a few comments. Sure, as Milhouse Van Houten says, "my mom says I'm cool", but I understand how many people feel I'm not notable. I've looked at the comments and am somewhat amused that I've generated such interest though. Here are my observations: First of all, of all the submissions 4 Deletes have actually advanced an argument to Delete and 3 Keeps have made arguments to Keep. Although many people have piled on, my objective view is that - no matter what topic - the debate should be framed among the posters who advance individual arguments. IMO each "as per so-and-so" vote is really only worth 5% of an elaborated vote for the purposes of this process (and I really do mean IMO in general and not just because it's about me). My next observation is a general one about Wikipedia. This site has been fantastic for me learning anything about anything. I'm a law student and I never imagined that an "encyclopedia" would actually have the depth to point me in the right direction (i.e. on jurisprudence or theory) at some points. But Wikipedia is also more than depth; its breadth of subject matter is also impressive. Although I wouldn't lose sleep at a personal level about being deleted, more generally, I'd be a bit disappointed if fewer and fewer comparable "footnote-type-tid-bits" were weeded out of Wikipedia. I like being able to look up a topic and find little tiny facts that I can't find elsewhere. A few posters to my defense have made this point (that I'm not very relevant, but I might just scrape by). Many of the posters to the contrary never really reasoned out why this is not the case, although I respect their opinions. Best Regards to All; I particularly liked JGGardiner's comment to keep everything in perspective. Cheers. Anber 04:29, 2 May 2006 (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.