Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gil Peñalosa (2nd nomination)


 * 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. There is consensus that, after the rewrite, WP:GNG is met, which makes arguments relying on WP:NPOL moot. Salvio giuliano 08:32, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

Gil Peñalosa
AfDs for this article:


 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

article not meet WP:GNG Endrabcwizart (talk) 09:42, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Canada.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 10:07, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete. Debatable if the subject meets WP:GNG (I'm leaning on probably), but my problem is that this has been brought as a draft a number of times and declined a number of times. This is an even poorer version of the article than what has existed in draftspace and would need significant improvements, like adding citations to be included in mainspace. — WildComet talk 20:56, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete. People do not get articles just for standing as candidates in municipal elections they haven't won, but that's the only notability claim being attempted here — and having reviewed several of the prior draft submissions, people have consistently failed to follow the direction, given more than once, that the key to making him notable enough for a Wikipedia article was to show proper reliable source coverage demonstrating preexisting notability as an urbanist before running as a candidate. And I'll point out, further, that this is not an "I dislike the guy" argument at all — I voted for the guy in the October municipal election, and depending on who the final candidates are in June it's not out of the question that I might vote for him again. But my personal views on the local politics of my own city are quite independent of how Wikipedia works, and how Wikipedia works is that politicians have to hold a notable office, not just run for one, to become accepted as notable politicians, and otherwise get articles only if they already qualified for articles on other inclusion criteria. Bearcat (talk) 02:47, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep - a Google search shows multiple articles profiling or highlighting Penalosa — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.98.222.103 (talk) 11:14, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Mayoral candidates do not get Wikipedia articles just because local campaign coverage exists in the local media of the city where they're running for mayor — every candidate for any political office can always show some campaign coverage in their local media, so WP:NPOL would be inherently meaningless if the existence of campaign coverage were all it took to exempt candidates from it, because that would mean that no candidate was ever subject to NPOL at all anymore since campaign coverage never fails to exist. So no, the existence of campaign coverage does not make a candidate keepable in and of itself: what we would need to see is pre-candidacy coverage in the context of his work as an urbanist, the very thing people keep failing to show that he ever had. Bearcat (talk) 13:00, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Penalosa meets the Basic Criteria under WP:NPOL having "received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject". Bearcat's additional criteria above does not appear in the policy. While certain politicians are also "presumed to be notable" even if they don't meet the Basic Criteria,there is nothing in the policy that includes Bearcats exclusions or requires his conditions to be met or that states that there is a higher standard to be met above and beyond the Basic Criteria. Bearcat's statement is a personal opinion of what he believes to be notable rather than a statement of Wikipedia policy. 208.98.222.38 (talk) 19:02, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I am not expressing any personal opinions of any sort. Wikipedia has an established consensus around how notability is actually assessed when unelected candidates for political office are brought up for discussion, which is that run of the mill (which, note, contains a section specifically devoted to "political candidates") campaign coverage is not sufficient to establish the permanent notability of a candidate just for being a candidate — because every candidate in every election always has some degree of campaign coverage, our consensus that candidates are not all notable enough for articles would be meaningless if the existence of campaign coverage were all it took to exempt a candidate from having to pass NPOL, because no candidate in any election would ever fail to earn that exemption. So unelected candidates aren't automatically notable enough just because campaign coverage exists, and are notable enough for inclusion only if they can be shown as some kind of special case — the notability of a candidate is established only if either (a) there's sufficient prior coverage to properly establish that he was already notable enough to keep a Wikipedia article independently of being a candidate for anything, or (b) the candidacy coverage nationalizes well beyond what's merely expected to exist, in such a way that even if he loses the election and never does another noteworthy thing for as long as he lives, his campaign itself would still pass the ten year test for enduring national or international significance anyway. We're not writing news here, and it isn't our job to maintain an article about every single person whose name happens to be present in the current news cycle — our job is to look past the current news cycle, and separate what's newsy from what's of enduring and permanent significance, and unelected candidacies very rarely meet the "enduring significance" test at all. Not because I said so, either, but because thousands of past AFD discussions on unelected candidates established a consensus that that's how the notability of unelected candidates works. Even NPOL #2 is not for candidates: it's for actual holders of offices at the local level, such as actual mayors and actual city councillors, who have sufficient analytical coverage of their work in office to establish a reason why it will still be of enduring significance 20 or 50 or 100 years after they die. Bearcat (talk) 21:02, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
 * You have not provided a single quote from policy. Please quote where the policy says any of what you are inferring above. 208.98.222.38 (talk) 21:48, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Not a single word of what I said was incorrect at all, and Wikipedia does not have any rule that participants in AFD discussions have to directly "quote from" policy verbatim, and somehow aren't allowed to just summarize policies and guidelines and consensus in their own words. But at any rate, if you really insist on links, then WP:NPOL (which I already linked to) works the way I said it works, WP:MILL (which I already linked to) works the way I said it works, WP:10YT (which I already linked to) works the way I said it works, and even WP:GNG isn't just "count the footnotes and keep anybody who passes an arbitrary number": it tests the footnotes for the enduring significance of the context of what they're covering the person for, so hits that exist in non-notable contexts (like unelected candidacies for political office) don't count for a whole lot in terms of establishing permanent notability at all. Bearcat (talk) 22:11, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

Relisting comment: so that notability can be discussed in the light of the sources provided by Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Salvio giuliano 19:58, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete Bearcat is correct in how our community usually treats unsuccessful (or current) candidates for political office. There is nothing that suggests that the subject would meet WP:GNG outside the context of the election and there is no expectation that Wikipedia is a repository of campaign brochures or a complete collection of candidates for public office. I am ok with a delete and redirect to 2023 Toronto mayoral by-election. --Enos733 (talk) 12:35, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep. There is coverage of Penalosa's work as an urbanist before his first electoral campaign is borderline WP:GNG compliant. . He has also been covered in multiple books on urbanism. Combined with the coverage that he has received. In any case, if this is redirected, it should probably be to his brother, Enrique Peñalosa, under whom he held office beforehand, since he ran in both the 2018 and 2023 mayoral elections, coming second in the former, which he may not repeat in the latter. I'm going to try and flesh out the article in the next bit, which might change my mind on this though . -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 19:37, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
 * After rewriting the article (WP:HEYMANN), I'm actually surprised at how much academic content there is on Penalosa, since going into this I thought a lot would be the typical puffery of political candidates. Many books have multiple pages on his work in Bogota, there's an entire chapter devoted to criticizing one of his biking theories, and many other urban design books mention him in shorter sections at sufficient detail to meet WP:BASIC. What currently stands is almost exclusively from sources before Penalosa first stood for election in 2022, with the ones post-candidacy mainly being used to flesh out the timeline before his candidacy. I have also not gone beyond what was already present in the article in terms of coverage for his two Toronto mayoral campaigns, which is unsurprisingly, quite in-depth (e.g. ). There are also quite a few scholarly articles, books, and other publications that look promising from Google search snippets for his name + "Bogota" that I don't have access to, but should factor in per WP:NEXIST (e.g. ) I think this obviously fails WP:NPOL, but clearly meets WP:GNG, even without the Toronto mayoral stuff, and have struck parts of my above !vote accordingly. Patar knight - chat/contributions 05:40, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Delete I still don't think he's notable other than being a guy that runs in the Toronto municipal elections. He's never been notable as an urban planner. The sources given are only local and related to him running for mayor. Oaktree b (talk) 22:40, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep. Toronto is the largest city in Canada and as such during the upcoming mayoral race he will get significant media attention, not just local. This media attention will be greater than the previous race as well as during the previous race he placed second against the incumbent, this upcoming election is an open election which means he could be seen as a frontrunner which increases his notability. That is in addition to his academic works and time as parks commissioner. I acknowledge that should he go on to lose the upcoming mayoral election then he may not be notable enough for a page, however I think that this discussion should probably be had after the election and not now, as it would be premature to have the page deleted and undeleted in a few months should he win. Furthermore, although this is a less significant point, during the election campaign some may use the page as an information resource to learn more about the candidate running in the election, with that page being a useful information source for voters. Elijah B4 (talk) 09:01, 26 March 2023 (UTC) — Elijah B4 (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * People do not get Wikipedia articles just for running as candidates in elections at the municipal level, not even in big cities. The inclusion tests are either (a) he wins the election, or (b) it can be shown that he had sufficient preexisting coverage in other contexts to be deemed notable for that reason regardless of whether he wins or loses the election, and "is a candidate" does not add up to permanent notability in and of itself. Bearcat (talk) 17:08, 28 March 2023 (UTC)


 * Keep – Patar knight has re-written the article with expanded sourcing, and has made a solid case that, although WP:NPOL is not passed, the subject passes WP:GNG separate from being a political candidate. Paul Erik  (talk) (contribs) 00:24, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep - whether he be only a mayoral candidate or not, the references in the article clearly meet GNG - which completely overrides WP:NPOL. And really - looking at List of Toronto municipal elections, every second place mayoral candidate in the last 70 years has an article - and I suspect that the handful that don't in the previous 80 years, probably are notable, if someone was do the research - though this is really irrelevant with GNG being. Though it does raise the question of what User:Endrabcwizart and User:Bearcat are thinking with this nomination, given the significant national coverage (or heck international in this case) of major Toronto mayoral candidates; perhaps they can withdraw/edit their positions. Nfitz (talk) 16:45, 31 March 2023 (UTC)
 * There is no such thing as "passes GNG on the existence of campaign coverage per se". As I have pointed out to you more than once in the past, every candidate in every election always receives enough coverage that they could claim to pass GNG, and were therefore exempted from actually having to be measured against NPOL, if the existence of campaign coverage were all it took — which would mean that our entire established consensus that candidates are not notable enough for articles just for being candidates would be meaningless, because no candidate would ever be subject to it anymore. So campaign coverage falls under WP:MILL, and does not secure the permanent notability of an unelected candidate all by itself — candidates get into Wikipedia only if either (a) they also have some other, stronger claim of notability that got them into Wikipedia on those grounds, or (b) the campaign coverage demonstrates a reason why their candidacy is somehow much more special than everybody else's candidacies. And, in fact, the list you allude to doesn't actually demonstrate your position at all — it demonstrates mine, because all of the second-place candidates who do have articles have them because they passed criterion A: they have other notability claims in addition to a mayoral candidacy, such as actually having won a different mayoral election before or after the one they lost and thus actually having been mayor, or having been an MP or an MPP at another time in their career, and absolutely none of them have articles on "placed second in a mayoral election" grounds per se. Bearcat (talk) 15:57, 1 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Comment: While there are policy driven rationales for keeping the article, there are also policy driven rationales for deletion. Ultimately what it will come down to, and what consensus needs to be reached on, is whether or not the subject meets WP:NOTABILITY criteria. Some things to take into account include both the amount and range of coverage the subject receives by WP:RS. The quality of sources is also important, with only reliable secondary sources providing WP:SIGCOV eligible to demonstrate WP:NOTABILITY. Demonstrating that the subject either does or does not satisfy WP:GNG will also be of tantamount importance as the discussion turns towards consensus. Essentially, demonstration of notability will support keeping the article, whereas failing to demonstrate notability should result in deletion. Discussion needs to focus on whether or not the subject satisfies notability and WP:SIGCOV criteria, as sufficient SIGCOV would effectively demonstrate notability - which, if the case, would not warrant deletion under the relevant policies. On the other hand, if it is decided that existing subject coverage is WP:ROUTINE and fails SIGCOV, there would certainly be a strong case for deletion. Therefore, assessing subject notability and coming to an agreement on the quality of sources will be of utmost importance in arriving at a policy-based consensus in regards to the outcome of this discussion. While I currently see a consensus developing to keep, the deletion arguments also have basis in policy and should be taken into account by the closer. The veracity of the existing sources needs careful scrutiny. Coverage amounting to WP:TRIVIAL or WP:ROUTINE would fall short of WP:SIGCOV and be grounds for deletion. Keeping would require that SIGCOV is established to demonstrate notability according to WP:GNG among other relevant guidelines. Shawn Teller (he/her) (talk) 04:45, 1 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep: after Patar knight's work. I think the sum total of the article's sources from a substantial period of time show subject passes GNG, even if individually they would be lacking.  // Timothy :: talk  12:01, 1 April 2023 (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.