Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jake Skinner


 * 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. Sarahj2107 (talk) 19:16, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

Jake Skinner

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Minor politician lacking adequate coverage to provide WP:Notability. Fails WP:NPOL  red dogsix (talk) 13:32, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Under WP:NPOL the individual in question has received extensive coverage by several newspapers that focus specifically on the individual and his policy changes hence meeting the requirements of WP:NPOL. The individual in question is a popular local political figure who currently holds a municipal position and has pushed to create reform in the province of Ontario. I don't expect the article to stay up for the individual in question just by being an elected official, as this does not guarantee notability, I hope it stays up because the article in question follows all of the notability guidelines that are provided by Wikipedia. As WP:NPOL has stated if the individual has to fit the criteria of "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject of the article." I have provided multiple sources that are both reliable and independent secondary sources that write about specifically about the individual, rather than only making a mention about the individual. Under the General Notability Guideline, states " Sources"[2] should be secondary sources, as those provide the most objective evidence of notability. There is no fixed number of sources required since sources vary in quality and depth of coverage, but multiple sources are generally expected.[3] Sources do not have to be available online or written in English. Multiple publications from the same author or organization are usually regarded as a single source for the purposes of establishing notability." There are no fixed amount of sources that are required, despite this though I have provided multiple sources that are of independent secondary sources which display the notability of the individual in question. Under WP:NPOL the individual in question meets the criteria for section two, and three. There are several local politicians that have their own Wikipedia with the less or the same number of sources that are provided.

Under the General Notability Guidelines: "Reliable" means sources need editorial integrity to allow verifiable evaluation of notability, per the reliable source guideline. Sources may encompass published works in all forms and media, and in any language. Availability of secondary sources covering the subject is a good test for notability. All the sources I have provided are secondary and are made up of notable newspapers, and news websites that focus specifically on the individual written about in my article."Municipal politicians are not inherently notable just for being in politics, but neither are they inherently non-notable just because they are in local politics. Each case is evaluated on its own individual merits." The individual in place despite being involved in Local politics has received national, and extensive press coverage about his policies, and his campaign to make computer science part of the education.

Ultimately I believe that the article I have provided has provided enough independent secondary sources that establish notability, as the individual is a popular local politician and has extensive articles writing about the individual. Hence I think that the deletion of this article would be unjust as I have proven how the individual in the article meets all of the notability issues. Although he is a local politician, this does not disqualify him from having a Wikipedia article being written about him. The fact is that there are several secondary about the individual in question and just because he might be a local politician this does not warrant deletion. The purpose of Wikipedia is to provide a knowledge as long as it's on a topic that has several secondary sources that prove the importance of the topic. I would understand why this article might be deleted if the sources involved about me or a campaign page as these sources would not provide proof of notability. I have however provided several sources on the local level, provincial, and national level concerning the notability of the person in question. Thank You for your time, I'm happy you have taken the time to hear my side of the argument. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TravellingTycoon (talk • contribs) 14:20, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete. Neither a school board trustee nor an as-yet-unelected candidate in a provincial election passes WP:GNG just because local coverage of them exists in the local media — local coverage always exists of every school board trustee on every school board and every as-yet-unelected candidate in every provincial election, so such coverage falls under WP:ROUTINE. At this level of significance, a person gets an article only if they can be demonstrated as significantly more notable than the norm, by virtue of their coverage nationalizing to sources on the order of The Globe and Mail or the National Post or the Montreal Gazette or the Vancouver Sun, and is not kept on Wikipedia just because local coverage exists in the local media. No prejudice against recreation in 2018 if he wins his seat in the provincial election and thereby becomes an actual MPP, but neither the sourcing nor the substance here gets him a Wikipedia article today. And for added bonus, more than half of the referencing is to primary sources like the TVDSB's own website about itself and the personal website of one of his colleagues on the TVDSB — but these are not sources that are independent of him, so they cannot assist in demonstrating notability at all. Bearcat (talk) 14:40, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete We would need much better sources to show he is notable as a school board member.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:03, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:25, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:25, 28 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep This is a VERY well connected and notable political figure in London, Ontario. He is very interesting in that he won a school board election despite homeschooling his children and is known throughout the province for his leadership in adding computer science to the elementary curriculum.  When he speaks people listen. He is probably a future education Minister in Ontario and is someone who will push the envelope when it comes to STEM education. He has created considerable opportunities for students in the field of robotics in London while other school boards do absolutely nothing to help inventive kids with an interest in STEM.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.206.27.228 (talk) 12:07, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment - Unfortunately none of this meets the requirements of WP:N or WP:NPOL. red dogsix (talk) 13:55, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Notability on Wikipedia is measured by the volume of reliable source coverage that the topic has or has not received in real media, not by simply asserting a pile of public relations bumf. If he's known throughout the province, then surely you can show coverage in the Toronto Star, the Ottawa Citizen, the Kingston Whig-Standard, the Sudbury Star and the Thunder Bay Chronicle-Journal — but if the article does not show the degree of wider coverage necessary to support that he's known as provincewide as you claim he is, then being sourceable only to London's own local media (where coverage of him is routinely expected to exist, because local coverage of school board trustees and local election candidates always exists) is not good enough. Bearcat (talk) 22:14, 28 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete -- does not meet WP:NPOL and strictly a vanity page. Sources are unconvincing. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:17, 30 September 2016 (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.