Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kristyn Wong-Tam


 * 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. Salvio Let's talk about it! 10:43, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Kristyn Wong-Tam

 * – ( View AfD View log )

non-notable local councillor Night of the Big Wind  talk  06:44, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
 * As WP:OUTCOMES already makes clear, councillors in large, internationally famous metropolitan cities whose populations reach into the millions column are considered notable enough to pass WP:POLITICIAN — and, in fact, Toronto is listed right in that guideline as an example of a city whose councillors qualify. Further, the article is already more than reliably sourced enough to get past WP:GNG anyway — and further media coverage can quite easily be added. Accordingly, keep. Bearcat (talk) 08:14, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
 * As original author you have to base your arguments on an essay? Night of the Big Wind  talk  08:21, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
 * One needs to concoct a special rationale above and beyond a preexisting Wikipedia guideline, to defend an article that's already entirely consistent with that guideline? How truly, truly odd. Bearcat (talk) 08:25, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Something like Articles for deletion/Richard Honeyford? Night of the Big Wind  talk  11:17, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Richard Honeyford's only failing, such as it was, was the paucity of actual reliable sources. This article has many already. Bearcat (talk) 16:13, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
 * WP:Notability (people) is a guideline, not an essay. It says, in part, "Just being an elected local official, or an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability, although such people can still be notable if they meet the primary notability criterion of "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject of the article."". Wong-Tam has significant coverage in reliable sources etc. Ground Zero | t 22:28, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. This councillor and councillors for city of Toronto are notable. Many verifiable news sources. EncyclopediaUpdaticus (talk) 12:24, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions.  — • Gene93k (talk) 15:09, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions.  — • Gene93k (talk) 15:09, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep, as per Bearcat. Nomination is inconsistent with applicable practice. Skeezix1000 (talk) 16:55, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep per Bearcat. CJCurrie (talk) 23:20, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep – Notability is demonstrated in the usual way; I don't see a particular reason to make an exception in this case. Paul Erik  (talk) (contribs) 00:00, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep per Bearcat and WP:Notability (people). Ground Zero | t 22:28, 20 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep – The topic passes notability guidelines per reliable sources already present in the article. Per WP:BIO, notability for people, specifically the section WP:BASIC, “A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of multiple published secondary sources which are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject.” If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may not be sufficient to establish notability.” The topic passes WP:BIO, section WP:BASIC due to the availability of multiple independent sources which demonstrate notability and in the manner of which those sources are not comprised of trivial coverage. Northamerica1000 (talk) 06:11, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment - It appears that the nominator may not have followed the guidelines listed in WP:BEFORE for source searching prior to nominating this article for deletion, which, if true, nullifies the basis of nomination for deletion. There's no mention in the nomination regarding the availability of reliable sources. The nomination's basis is upon his or her opinion, rather than upon searching for reliable sources, as required per WP:BEFORE requirements. Northamerica1000 (talk) 06:14, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I hope you are kidding that you use this silly disqualification? Night of the Big Wind  talk  07:32, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
 * "Disqualification"? WP:Deletion Policy makes it  very clear that deletion is the last resort. We still permit it without searching, but it's an unproductive thing to do. It's so much more effective to nominate those for which you can determine there really are no sources.   DGG ( talk ) 00:41, 24 September 2011 (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.