Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Laxer


 * 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. Consensus is pretty clear that the subject doesn't meet the relevant criteria of WP:Politician &mdash; Spaceman  Spiff  15:04, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Michael Laxer

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Completing nomination for IP, reasoning from talk page follows Hairhorn (talk) 01:50, 5 August 2010 (UTC) Prod contested with the edit summary "long established article" (as though that somehow exempts it from notability criteria). Fails WP:POLITICIAN. The only "references" are related to his bids for candidacy and are trivial in nature. 69.181.249.92 (talk) 01:37, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions.  --  Jezhotwells (talk) 01:52, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions.  --  Jezhotwells (talk) 01:52, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions.  --  Jezhotwells (talk) 01:53, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete, clearly fails WP:POLITICIAN. Jezhotwells (talk) 01:54, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep, longstanding article so odd that it would suddenly become a target for deletion during an election. Subject has received coverage in major media for instance there's this article in the Globe and Mail that mentions as well as the CBC coverage mentioned in the article. The anon IP is also incorrect in claiming that these references "are releted to his bids for candidacy" they are actually unrelated to his election campaigns and they are also not trivial references. Round the Horne (talk) 03:17, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment - actually, it was your editing it that brought it to my attention. Don't imagine a conspiracy or ill-intent where none exists. 69.181.249.92 (talk) 03:29, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Ok, well maybe you can respond to my comment that neither of the references are actually about his election campaigns and that they are also non-trivial but either entirely or predominantly about the subject? Round the Horne (talk) 03:39, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Whether the article is "longstanding" or not is irrelevant. Whether the article should be deleted should be judged on its merits. One of the reports linked says "For instance, Michael Laxer and his neo-Waffle “Ginger Group ” recently wrote Ontario NDP leader Andrea Horwath to demand the party issue a comprehensive manifesto as soon as possible and stop focusing its resources primarily in winnable ridings", and then give a quote. A brief mention of the fact that Laxer wrote a campaign letter is not substantial coverage. The other one gives somewhat longer mention of Laxer, but it is just reporting remarks he made concerning a political contest. Not really substantial. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:32, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually, they are fairly trivial references; they both merely quote him in passing while actually being about something or someone else. Our notability rules here really aren't met by references which demonstrate only that a person exists. Bearcat (talk) 21:30, 6 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom and Jezhotwells.   —  Jeff G.  ツ  03:35, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete Obviously fails WP:POLITICIAN and in my view, the sources are insufficient to support notability on the basis of WP:BIO. I have considered the sources in the article and presented in this AfD and I'm sorry but I can't agree that they are "entirely or predominantly" about the subject. One mentions him very briefly, the other involves him commenting about campaign financing but says nothing about who he is beyond the fact that he is a political candidate. To write a biography on this project, more is needed.--Mkativerata (talk) 03:59, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep I've seen many wikipedia pages for candidates for office with much less public profile survive votes for deletion. This guy was a professor at York University, ran twice for the NDP, and is the son of a well known Canadian political activist. Cooltobekind (talk) 04:21, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Question. What is the subject's academic background? The article may be appropriately included according to academic criteria, rather than political. Cindamuse (talk) 06:58, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
 * The article makes no mention of his being a professor, nor can I find any mention of this fact anywhere. Could this possibly be a confusion with Robert Laxer, who did teach at York University? As for running for the NDP, WP:POLITICIAN is clear: "being ... an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability". Finally, whose son he is is totally irrelevant, as notability is not inherited. We need evidence that he is notable. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:32, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Cooltobekind, please read WP:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions, commonly known as WP:OTHERSTUFF. Jezhotwells (talk) 13:10, 5 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Obviously I think its a keep for now, but as a matter of factual accuracy, Michael was never a professor at York, his father James Laxer currently is, and has been since the early 1970s. Michael does not possess a PHd to my knowledge, and if he ever taught at York, it likely only would have been in the role of teaching assistant or sessional instructor, but to my knowledge, he did neither.--Abebenjoe (talk) 16:51, 6 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete, doesn't meet notability criteria of WP:POLITICIAN.  PK  T (alk)  11:32, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep He is currently running for Toronto City Council, as a councillor candidate in Etobicoke--Lakeshore, Ward 6. Therefore, he is notible under WP:POLITICIAN. Here's the link to the Elections Toronto website http://app.toronto.ca/vote2010/findByOffice.do?sortType=1&officeType=2&officeName=Councillor.  At minimum, his page should not be deleted until after October 25.--Abebenjoe (talk) 21:35, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Huh? WP:POLITICIAN doesn't say that candidates are notable, it doesn't even say that absolutely every incumbent city councillor is notable. Hairhorn (talk) 21:58, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Canadian Politicians are considered notable when running, that is the convention that we have set for a long time, so no, deletion is not appropriate at this time. I point to the most recent by-election in Toronto, in the provincial electoral district of Toronto Centre.  Some of the candidates were up for deletion, but as I just pointed out, the administrators and editors of Canadian political articles have come to an agreement that all candidates are notable during the election.  However, if the candidates are not elected, and they are not notable for anything else, their individual article is deleted, and in some cases, the information is put into a larger article that is based on a political party's candidates in a specific federal or provincial election, so it is following WP:POLITICIAN. Check with administrator Bearcat.  He consistently has followed and applied this rule.   Over the past three years, these type of deletion debates always end in keeping the article for at least the duration of the election, so the precedent is already se, and there is no reason to deviate from it now. --Abebenjoe (talk) 16:38, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Huh? How does some alleged local arrangement in a WikiProject override a project wide guideline? There is no discussion on this to be found by searching WT:Canadian Wikipedians' notice board.  Jezhotwells (talk) 16:46, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes this is news to me too. Only last year I nominated a non-notable candidate for deletion, and the result was delete; and as a provincial candidate, she was arguably more notable than someone running to be a city councillor. The page has since been recreated, since she eventually won her seat. WP:POLITICIAN says nothing about an exception for Canadian candidates. Hairhorn (talk) 16:51, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Well Canada ain't local, but since administrators are following this rule, and has much precedent, than obviously it must be applied in this case. In other words, there is case history to keep it.Abebenjoe (talk) 16:55, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I just gave a contrary precedent... Hairhorn (talk) 17:03, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Please provide diffs demonstrating the existence of this alleged local rule. BTW this is a world-wide encyclopaedia so yes, Canada is local. Jezhotwells (talk) 16:59, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
 * In terms of how this agreement has come forth, check all the deletion debates in and around Canadian, provincial and municipal debates, I already mentioned the most recent one that dealt with a provincial by-election, that is where the case history comes from, not boards. When the administrator Bearcat finally responds to this debate, you will have most of the answers you are seeking, as he has been the main arbiter dealing with these kinds of edit debates. 17:04, 6 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Oh, and for your information admins are just editors like anyone else, but with access to sysop tools for administrative tasks. Their opinions carry no more weight than that of other editors. Policies and guidelines are decided project wide by editor's consenus, hence WP:POLITICIAN.  Jezhotwells (talk) 17:04, 6 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Really..., so the convention of precedent doesn't apply, I highly doubt that, as that is part of the guidelines.Abebenjoe (talk) 17:07, 6 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Consensus rules Wikipedia not policy or administrators, policy is created and overridden by consensus, administrators are promoted and removed by consensus. Recently even a mayoral candidate for Calgary was deleted by User:Bearcat because of WP:POLITICIAN as stated here- Mcmatter (talk|contrib) 17:46, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I think you have a pretty persistent misunderstanding of what the precedent is for politicians, Abebenjoe, because I've explained this to you before. There is no rule or consensus that Canadian political candidates are notable just for their candidacies alone; WikiProjects don't have any special right to set their own special country-specific guidelines that supersede actual Wikipedia policy. The actual rule is that unelected candidates can have articles if, and only if, they would have already been notable enough for articles before, or regardless of, their candidacy.
 * Even at the level of Toronto's mayoral candidates, George Smitherman is not notable because of his candidacy; he was already notable because he served as an MPP for ten years before running for mayor. And on and so forth: John McCain is not notable because he was the Republican candidate for President of the United States in 2008; he was already notable as a sitting member of the United States Senate. And in the Toronto Centre by-election that you alluded to above, note that only Glen Murray, Cathy Crowe and John Turmel actually have their own articles, as they already had pre-existing notability; all of the others either have a mini-bio in an "X party's candidates in Y election" list or nothing at all. And even some of those lists desperately need to be swept for unsourced trivia and campaign brochure-style writing.
 * Please understand that the rule is not, and never has been, that unelected candidates for office (Canadian or otherwise) are entitled to articles just for being candidates — it is that a candidate who was already notable enough for other reasons to qualify for an article on here can have one, but a candidate whose primary or sole claim of notability is the candidacy itself cannot. Bearcat (talk) 21:25, 6 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Change to Delete - Keep It seems strange for an anonymous user to propose this 5 year old article for deletion just before the election. There is nothing neutral about this attack. Secondarywaltz (talk) 17:01, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Please provide some reasoning involving Wikipedia policies for this debate. Suppositions about the nominator's motives carry no weight at all.  Jezhotwells (talk) 17:04, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Are you really so naive? You know politics. You know about dirty tricks. Why don't we just defer this debate for a couple of months, to ensure that there is no hidden prejudice? Then we can delete the article with some certainty about people's motives. Secondarywaltz (talk) 17:26, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I am sorry that you do not seem to understand the criteria for deletion or the deletion debate process. This subject is not notable and thus does not deserve space in this encyclopaedia. As has been pointed out by several editors, running for office does not confer notability for an article in Wikipedia.  Jezhotwells (talk) 18:00, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment. Agreed. This forum is a discussion to recommend actions according to established policy and guidelines. The length of the article's existence on Wikipedia is irrelevant, as are assertions regarding motive. Regardless of the nominator's motives, we are addressing issues pertaining to notability. Wikipedia is also not a webhost. It is inappropriate to host information on a political candidate or anyone else for that matter, or defer discussion for "a couple of months" in order for objectives of a political campaign to come to fruition. Cindamuse (talk) 18:59, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
 * OK - Delete. You've got me. If this wannabe gets elected and does something to catch our attention, the article can alway be recreated. Secondarywaltz (talk) 19:58, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
 * While admittedly it is a bit unusual for an anonymous IP to nominate articles for deletion, it's not unprecedented. And most knowledgeable administrators can make reasonably informed judgements as to whether a deletion nomination looks suspicious or not: 69 has tackled vandalism and policy issues on a very wide variety of articles, and hasn't been disproportionately (or even really at all, apart from this nomination) involved in edits relating to the Toronto municipal election, and their IP number resolves to the United States. So there's no particular reason to infer hidden motives here. Assume good faith, eh? Bearcat (talk) 02:16, 7 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete. Subject fails notability WP:POLITICIAN aside from his political campaign. Regarding precedent of issues raised in this discussion, please see WP:OUTCOMES that present common outcomes of campaigns of city councilors. Cindamuse (talk) 18:59, 6 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete this person is not currently notable in anyway, this article should have been CSD from the beginning.- Mcmatter (talk|contrib) 17:46, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete; no substantial evidence of notability apart from his electoral candidacy. This isn't a bias issue, either, as I'm a loyal NDPer who'd quite happily be voting for him myself if I lived in his ward — but in my role as a Wikipedian, I'm more than able to separate my personal politics from my assessments of whether a person meets our notability criteria or not. And besides, the article can always be recreated at a later date if he wins. Bearcat (talk) 21:25, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment instead of deleting it what about merging it to one of the existing articles on NDP candidates or creating an article on Toronto city council candidates? There will probably be more such bios popping up and it would be useful to merge them into one article rather than delete them. Round the Horne (talk) 01:43, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I will say it again so that you understand. WP:POLITICIAN, criteria #3: 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." Which bit of that do you not understand?  Jezhotwells (talk) 08:36, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your rudeness, condescension is such an admirable trait and it's quite refreshing and most effective in making it clear to all just how superior your intellect is, but you obviously didn't understand my comment as your response doesn't address my suggestion of merging the article into an existing article such as New Democratic Party candidates, 2003 Ontario provincial election. Round the Horne (talk) 10:01, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not comfortable extending the idea we use for provincial/federal candidates to people who ran for city council seats. Remember that if we open the door to Toronto council candidates then *every* city/town council candidate becomes eligible for the same treatment. The volume of names and detail is larger, and the sources of information are more varied. And again, most of the candidates fail WP:POLITICIAN.  PK T (alk)  11:40, 7 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete currently fails WP:POLITICIAN and WP:GNG, no prejudice against recreation once he wins elected office and gains substantial coverage or gains notability otherwise. Hekerui (talk) 10:06, 10 August 2010 (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.