Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Garth Steek


 * 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. JodyBtalk 19:55, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Garth Steek

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Unsourced BLP of a person of marginal notability, either sources should be added or it should be deleted. RMHED (talk) 22:25, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep as a member of the city council. DGG (talk) 23:37, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete without any sources we don't know who he really is.--Scott MacDonald (talk) 00:48, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep we can verify he was a councilman for a major city. that's enough to keep. Dloh   cierekim  01:35, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Prominent local figure, who has received plenty of press coverage (even if it hasn't been added to the article yet). CJCurrie (talk) 03:41, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete the world is full of thousands of local councillors, and they are not notable for being one. I could produce references for my local councillors, with lots of local press attention and so on - but are they notable outside their area. No. Members of the Winipeg City Council are not notable.--UpDown (talk) 08:38, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
 * <> No, Updown, that's not what I'm saying. You are correct in saying being a local council member is not inherently notable. For instance, those of a small city like Largo, Florida are not. Those of Pinellas's largest city, St. Petersburg, are probably not. However, BIO says, "Generally speaking, mayors are likely to meet this criterion, as are members of the main citywide government or council of a major metropolitan city." Winnepeg is Manitoba's largest city and provincial capital. It's one of Canada's ten largest cities and has a population of greater than 500,000. The city council members of such a city surely qualify. Cheers, Dloh   cierekim  14:49, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't say that Winipeg is a large enough city, or important enough worldwide, to pass the criteria. Cities like New York, London, Paris, maybe - Winnipeg no.--UpDown (talk) 08:04, 31 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 21:18, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 21:18, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 21:19, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete unless reliable, independent sources are added to this unsourced biography of a living person. Per WP:V "If no reliable, third-party sources can be found for an article topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it.", per WP:BLP "biographical material about a living person... must adhere strictly to all... of our content policies, especially... Verifiability." Guest9999 (talk) 04:12, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
 * You are misinterpreting policy. Sourcing exists-- all you need to do is the work, the digging, the reviewing and the adding in-- and this is not improvement. It is not necessary that the sourcing be in the article to keep it. It would be far better and far less disruptive to add the sources yourself instead of imposing some sort of deadline. The subject is clearly notable and there is no deadline in improving any article. Certainly, it would be nice if article creators should cite their sources. But that is not always how Wikipedia works. BLP is intended to prevent the use of Wikipedia as a platform for defamation and casting aspersions. Such content can and must be removed on sight. This is not negative content, period. It is certainly not primarily to attack or disparage the subject. As side note, it is also not promotional material that would be harmfully taking advantage of Wikipedia for selfish gain. It is a neutral article aobut a subject that is clearly notable. Article deletion is a remedy that is to be used for non salvageable article for which no other alternative exists. Once again, the alternative to deletion, the best choice entirely, is to improve the article. My suggestion to anyone who laments the lack of sourcing in the article is to use the opportunity to do a little article building. If you are too busy, I would recommend adding a and an  to the article to attract the attention of those who have the time. Dloh   cierekim  12:57, 2 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep; notable as a councilman of a large, major city. I haven't seen anything to suggest that the article can't be improved using existing sources. Celarnor Talk to me 15:39, 2 November 2008 (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.