Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dorothy Kostrzewa


 * 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 keep. (non-admin closure) w umbolo   ^^^  22:27, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Dorothy Kostrzewa

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Biography of a politician, notable only for serving on a non-metropolitan city council. As always, there is no automatic presumption of notability for city councillors -- to actually earn an article, a city councillor must either (a) serve in an internationally famous global city on the order of Vancouver, Toronto, New York City, Chicago or London, or (b) be reliably sourceable as much more notable than most other city councillors. But this cites just three pieces in local newspapers, a volume and depth and range of coverage which literally any city councillor anywhere could always show, and a short tribute statement by the local MP upon her death. And no, claiming that she was the first member of an underrepresented minority group to hold an otherwise non-notable office is not an automatic notability freebie either -- to make that a notability claim that got her into Wikipedia, she would still have to be singled out for attention in national media and not just the local kind. For one thing, there have been many examples of people having "first woman/person of colour/LGBT/etc." status ascribed to them in error, simply because the person making the claim wasn't aware of the one or more predecessors that actually existed -- which is why "first Chinese Canadian woman to hold political office" isn't an article-clinching notability claim just because a local pennysaver in her own hometown claimed it, if nationalizing sources haven't also reaffirmed it as verified truth. Bottom line, the sourcing here isn't good enough to get her over WP:GNG, and nothing stated in the article body is "inherently" notable enough to exempt the sourcing from having to get her over GNG. Bearcat (talk) 15:10, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 17:05, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 17:05, 27 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep - detailed write ups here and here in non-local publications, an honorary LL.D. from University of the Fraser Valley, a minor municipal facility named for her , and a eulogy in the House of Commons , suggest she attained notability beyond the level of common municipal politicians. The Vancouver Sun (not a local publication, and one often cited as a reliable source) further asserts that she is the first woman of Chinese descent to hold political office in Canada, and we should accept that claim absent a reliable competing claim. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 13:49, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Chilliwack is part of the Vancouver media market, so the Vancouver Sun doesn't count as non-local coverage for the purposes of nationalizing the notability of a city councillor in Chilliwack. A eulogy in the House of Commons is not a notability freebie, as short speeches like that are delivered upon the deaths of local figures all the time by the local MP. Having a piece of municipal infrastructure named after them, a thing which about half to three quarters of everybody who ever served on a municipal council can also claim about themselves, is not an instant notability pass for a municipal councillor. Having an honorary degree from the local university is not a notability freebie for a municipal councillor. None of this adds up to a strong basis for inclusion. Bearcat (talk) 04:30, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:40, 31 October 2018 (UTC)


 * I am leaning towards keep per WP:GNG based on Ivan's findings. Chilliwack is over 60 miles from Vancouver, I am not so sure we should discount that source as purely local. The subject is also highlighted in the book Celebration: Chinese Canadian Legacies in British Columbia. She is included in an exhibit by the Chilliwack Museum and Historical Society . Thsmi002 (talk) 02:00, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Whether a source is local or not is not a question of physical distance — it's a question of media market. Chilliwack gets Vancouver's TV stations and has none of its own, it has a couple of its own radio stations but is served mainly by Vancouver's radio stations, and it has only a weekly newspaper of its own while its daily newspaper coverage comes from the Vancouver dailies. So how many kilometres it is away from Vancouver is irrelevant — it's in the Vancouver media market, because Vancouver is where virtually all of its local media coverage comes from, so Vancouver media doesn't count as extralocal coverage. Bearcat (talk) 20:32, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   15:57, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Weak keep it's not a WP:BLP1E since she has passed, it's not WP:PROMO since she has passed, she's been covered in a couple different independent sources about the Chinese community in B.C., and she did get a couple local long form obituaries. This is one of the most marginal !votes I've ever made since she's only a local politician, but I think the diversity of the sources documenting her unique life and career is enough to get her over the WP:GNG line. SportingFlyer  talk  11:51, 5 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep First Chinese Canadian to hold any political office in all of Canada and was longest serving city councillor in British Columbia are notable and hereto unrefuted. Bk  Read  Talk 16:48, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
 * "First member of an underrepresented minority group ever to do an otherwise non-notable thing" is not a notability criterion, and what has to be "refuted" or "unrefuted" about it is not just whether or not the claim is verifiable, but whether or not she received enough nationalized coverage for it to claim a WP:GNG pass as a special case. That is, the notability test is whether or not her firstness got her covered in sources beyond her own local media market, like The Globe and Mail or the Ottawa Citizen or the Toronto Star, and coverage within her own local media market is not enough in and of itself. Bearcat (talk) 19:10, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Final relist, mostly to give the nominator time to respond to Megalibrarygirl. As soon as the nominator withdraws the AfD, it will be speedily kept.
 * Keep I've fleshed out the article a little and I've found a book celebrating the lives of Chinese Canadians that takes her out of just "local" coverage territory. In addition, she has an oral history and archive which I linked in external links. Passes GNG. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 02:06, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, w umbolo   ^^^  13:44, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep I have also added the Queen Elizabeth II Diamond Jubilee Medal, which she was awarded posthumously. With the book entry, the awards, the coverage (and for me the point is that Chilliwack is not local to Vancouver, and if Vancouver media featured Kostrzewa and Chilliwack in their coverage of the book, that is non-local coverage, which many people outside Chilliwack would have seen) I believe that she meets WP:GNG. RebeccaGreen (talk) 17:04, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep, based on the argument provided by Ivan, as well as the findings by other editors, which seems to show that she suitably meets the WP:GNG. Greenleader(2) (talk) 21:12, 12 November 2018 (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.