Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mark Warner (Canadian politician)


 * 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. Note I voted, but this is obvious. Neil  ム  13:16, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Mark Warner (Canadian politician)

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Non-notable Conservative candidate. Never held public office. Fails WP:BIO. Delete GreenJoe 20:21, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I should add that it also fails WP:AUTO since the subject himself has heavily edited the article. --GreenJoe 20:26, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Nice personal election brochure this is... Is the book he co-authored notable? If so, keep.  If not, delete unless he wins the by-election. Resolute 21:19, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete As loath as I am to delete such a well formated and non-POV article, he isn't notable till he wins an election or something unusual happens in the election. Mbisanz 02:56, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Weak keep. I tend to think that all major party nominees reach a minimum (and, in this case, a bare minimum) level of worthiness of inclusion. But if consensus leans the other direction, I see nothing else about the individual that makes an article on him worth keeping unless he gets elected to Parliament.  young  american  (wtf?) 12:00, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. We keep the information on all major party candidates in Canadian elections. If he is not notable enough for a full article, he should be merged into the general one on Conservative candidates. In this case he has done enough things outside of politics that an independent article is justified. - SimonP 12:25, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. Discussion on the merits of a Wikipedia article on Mark Warner can be found at the very recent deletion review discussion, which can be found here.  There seems to be ample evidence that he is notable enough for an article with or without his candidacy; he holds an award from McGill University, co-author of a published book, is a frequent public speaker, and has featured in Financial Times, the Toronto Star, Agence France Press, and the Wall Street Journal/ Dow Jones.  I can only assume the nominator didn't read beyond the first paragraph.  Neil   ム  14:10, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep It is standard practice that Canadian political candidates, nominated for an upcoming, current or previous election are notable enough to keep. However, it is not to be an explicit campaign piece, so asking for volunteers etc. should be removed from any political article if such subject matter appears within it. I've also noticed that this article was nominated for deletion by GreenJoe, who consistently brings up AfD challenges that fail, due to their misundertanding of Wikipedia guidlines. Since almost of all of that user's AfD fail, and are in fact unwarranted, this call for deletion should be dismissed outright. --Abebenjoe 15:45, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Assume good faith, please. The DRV did suggest this go to AfD, and not everything I nominate at AfD fails. It's about geting a consensus too. I don't appreciate your venomous words. GreenJoe 16:06, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm on the fence about this one, but I do feel that I need to stand up for GreenJoe, with whom I've clashed a couple of times before (he's a deletionist, I'm an inclusionist, basically). He does propose a fair number of unsuccessful AfDs, but it's not because he doesn't understand WP:N; he just takes a very narrow, but not unreasonable, reading of them.  And even if he was completely out to lunch about it (which he isn't), that wouldn't constitute justification for outright dismissal of this AfD, as User:Abebenjoe suggests. Sarcasticidealist 19:09, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Weak keep - I trimmed a bit of pavonage, but the article is still pretty superficial. What visible positions has he taken, other than being a Tory of Afro-Caribbean heritage? What controversies has he been associated with? GreenJoe, I'd advise improving the article and making it meet NPOV standards, rather than trying for a deletion. (And co-authorship of an obscure textbook is a pretty weak claim to notability, by the way.) -- Orange Mike 16:17, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep Co-authoring a book usually means that the guy suggested that the author use Verdana as the font in the book or something equally similar, in my experience. But regardless, he has other 'claims to fame' as well as the Candidacy. It kind of reminds me of the Bill Shorten article... who is a union activist in Australia, and a candidate for the 2007 election here. I'm not sure whether or not this guy is on a similar level, because I'm overall unfamiliar with Canadian politics.  Pursey  Talk 17:10, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
 * As nicely formatted an election brochure the article is, he's not notable. He's not going to win. It's a Liberal riding. Very liberal. Major party candidate doesn't make him notable. The book isn't notable, and he's only the co-author. The by-election hasn't even been called yet. Wikipedia isn't a crystal ball. --GreenJoe 17:13, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
 * This article is not about an anticipated event, so Wikipedia is not a crystal ball is not relevant here.--Markdsgraham 12:42, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge per SimonP.--JForget 23:38, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Since nobody else seems to have bothered to look the book up in quotes on Google: its a law-school text and has been used as a text in courses on International Law (which by the way, is significant enough alone to keep the article per WP:BIO...). While there are not a lot of recent courses solely based on the text (since the last edition with Warner was in 1997), this version is apparently still used as a reference in classes across Canada (eg: University of Victoria LAW332, USask's 2006 offering of "International Trade Law", etc), and is cited as a resource by numerous law libraries at US Universities (a testament to notability .. eg: NYU lists the text among only two in its "NAFTA research guide" http://www.law.nyu.edu/library/naftaguide.html) and Canadian universities (eg: McGill, Western, etc). The book is hardly passable as it is also co-authored by a former Minister of Foreign Affairs. I'm still recent enough of a student to have access to journal sites, and this text is cited in published papers, although I unfortunately can't direct link anything from JSTOR or anything like that because nobody will have access.
 * ¶ To respond to above commentators confused over the multiple authors, this is obvious because the text is designed to be comprehensive and there are different legal specializations covered by each author. It does seem to be a "best seller" as both the publisher and Warner's bio from Fasken Martineau DuMoulin state (who referred to it as "the leading Canadian trade law treatise" in pieces dating closer to the publication date). I can even find it referenced in decisions logged on justice.gc.ca (that's Canada Justice Dept for the non-Canadian wikipedians... eg URL: http://canada.justice.gc.ca/en/ps/drs/cac/ch2-a.html).
 * ¶ In terms of Notability, there are multiple published articles referencing Warner, including mentions in local news in the riding about him. Per Neil's comment, he's been tapped to comment/write on issues in The Financial Times, the Toronto Star, Agence France Press, and the Wall Street Journal/ Dow Jones... He's also well published in other sources: "Antitrust, World Competition, International Trade Law and Regulation, the American Journal of International Law, Law & Policy in International Business, the Vanderbilt Journal of Transnational Law, the Northwestern Journal of International Law & Business, the Brooklyn Journal of International Law, the Canadian Business Law Journal and The Legal Times".
 * ¶ Despite some effort to wipe the reference from his previous article, Warner is also listed in ExpertGuides: http://www.expertguides.com/default.asp?page=2&egaBOBID=&CountryID=103&ExpertOfficeID=21340&GuideID=158&fcIndex=1575&fIndex=687 (ExpertGuides for finding internationally recognized lawyers is published by the Legal Media Group of EuroMoney -- a published monthly financial magazine). Check the methodology page at http://www.expertguides.com/default.asp?page=11&stub=2. The listing research process starts with 3500 questionnaries: "The questionnaire asks leading figures to nominate those lawyers they consider being among the most capable for that work. The results are analyzed and screened for firm, network and alliance bias" and continues with interviews with "acknowledged leading experts" in interviews held in major legal centres: "Los Angeles, San Francisco, Chicago, New York, Washington DC, London, Paris, Brussels, Frankfurt, Zurich, Hong Kong, Singapore, Melbourne and Sydney." And it goes on (read it yourself). It says mentions can be "enhanced" by adding a bio (presumably for $$), which given the logo, is something Warner's firm apparently opted to do. However, there is no way to "buy" your way onto this list and given the publisher it is very credible. Take a moment consider what it would take for experts from across the world in your chosen field to name you and your work as worthy of their nod. I for one would be wondering how the heck they knew who I was. This recognition makes sense: Warner chaired a committee with the American Bar Association, Worked with the ICC (Co-chaired Competition Commission Working Party on E-Commerce and Competition Policy), testified for the US DOJ, and FTC, and served as counsel for the OECD for several years.
 * ¶ Even without a nomination for Toronto Centre, he's worthy of Wikipedia. That nomination only adds to the fact he should have an article here, and is far from the sole reason for it. The only candidate in this riding not worthy of an article is Tindal. The Greens here don't have to be upset that the best candidate their EDA could muster is little more than a deadbeat kid (b. 1981) with Internet access... I've said it before, and I'll say it again: I really do think all of Rae (Liberal) / Khaki (NDP) / Warner (Conservative) are worthy of bio's here on Wikipedia, and especially believe this to be the case so after reading WP:BIO. Greenjoe: I'm sure everyone familiar with Toronto Centre agrees that Warner has one hell of a battle to fight if he wants to make a dent in the riding, but that has nothing to do with his worthiness of an article, and nothing to do with Wikipedia being a crystal ball. Looking at your history, you seem to be a fan of what I think is excessive tagging. If you put crap on Khaki's article, I'll be there to defend that too. Thank goodness Rae's is locked. --Grandmasterkush 01:43, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep or merge I'm of the view that major party candidates should have articles at least until the election they are running in is concluded, particularly if at least one candidate in the contest already has an article. If we need to revisit the question about his notability after the election, we can, but I see no harm in having an article until then as long as it's well sourced, balanced and NPOV. Reginald Perrin 03:06, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep I tend to think that the only reliable basis for notability is ultimately objective: authorship of a major text, published recognition in a field, holding academic positions, and appearing in multiple articles in world-wide media have to be enough. Otherwise, it becomes impossible to build an encyclopedia of relevant knowledge.  Full disclosure: I live in the riding and am politically active (as a Conservative --Markdsgraham 19:02, 11 September 2007 (UTC)).  Nonetheless, I think deleting this article and others like it will lead to a flood of deletions with the ultimate effect that users cannot find articles on subjects they are interested in.  I think it's clear that any concerns about NPOV should be addressed by editing the article not deleting it.--Markdsgraham 12:42, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep on the basis of general notability as well as the election. I have argued that major party candidates for national positions should be considered notable as a matter of course--this has not really been the consensus previously, but consensus can change and perhaps it has--certainly I've seen more people supporting that view lately. (I think they're important enough and always get press.)  I doubt the academic career would be notable by itself: Assistant Professors generally turn out not to be notable as academics alone--co-authorship of one book may not be enough.   DGG (talk) 15:48, 11 September 2007 (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.