Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Micheal O'Brien (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 no consensus. Missvain (talk) 16:07, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

Micheal O'Brien (Canadian politician)

 * – ( View AfD View log )

WP:BLP of a politician and journalist, not properly sourced as having any credible claim to passing our notability standards for politicians or journalists. When I first found this 20 minutes ago, its introduction claimed that the subject has been a Canadian MP -- however, this is not verified by Parliament's own website, which does not list a Michael O'Brien as ever having served in the House of Commons. What is true is that he ran as a candidate in 1988, and was initially declared the winner in his district, but then was found to have lost to Maurizio Bevilacqua on a recount, following which the whole thing got so tied up in legal wrangling over continued recounts and controverted dual swearing-in attempts that Parliament decided to just completely void the whole thing and schedule a new by-election, which O'Brien much more unequivocally lost to Bevilacqua — but as far as Parliament's website is concerned, Bevilacqua is listed as the MP duly elected on November 21, 1988 (the original election day), and O'Brien is not listed as ever having been an MP at all. So no matter what the legal complexities of the situation may have been, we can't deem O'Brien as passing WP:NPOL #1 just because of an election dispute, if Parliament itself doesn't list him as a past member at all — simply being involved in a legal battle to be declared the true winner of the seat is not the same thing as actually serving, and thus not a notability claim that passes NPOL. The place for content about the dispute is in Bevilacqua's article and/or York North, not in a badly referenced standalone BLP of O'Brien as an individual. But nothing else in the article constitutes a claim that he's notable for any other reason besides a disputed election snafu -- the election dispute itself is minimally referenced to a tiny smattering of media coverage that isn't enough to get him over WP:GNG, while everything else is referenced to primary sources, directory entries and photographs that are not support for notability at all. There's also a probable conflict of interest here, as O'Brien has been directly associated with an organization that has been the article creator's exclusive topic of concern for at least three years. Bearcat (talk) 17:16, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 17:16, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 17:16, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

Are you claiming an Editor is not a journalist?
 * Quite aside from the fact that I said no such thing, "editor" simply is not an "inherently" notable role that constitutes an automatic free pass into Wikipedia either, especially if your sources for his editorship of anything are his own self-published directory listings of his own content on directly affiliated websites (such as his own personal website or the websites of his own employers) instead of third-party writing about his editorship of anything in third-party sources independent of his career. Being notable as an editor doesn't automatically happen just because it's possible to offer technical verification that he's been an editor — it requires other people to establish the significance of his editorship by externally analyzing the importance of that work. Bearcat (talk) 19:07, 21 November 2020 (UTC)


 * The Gazette from Montreal, Quebec, Canada newspage Dec 10, 1990 — Voters in Beausejour and the Toronto area riding of York North cast their ... "Tory Michael O'Brien was declared the election-night winner by 58 votes" ... He went to Ottawa where he sat as a member of Parliament for 55 days".


 * This is not a partisan political item but the second significant Controverted Election in Canadian History, (O’Brien v. Hamel (1990), 73 O.R. (2d) 87; Nielsen v. Simmons (1957), 14 D.L.R. (2d) 446; ) the first being Erik Nielsen in the 1950s. It is in the Canada Gazette as noted here and for sure a significant piece of Canadian History. For one thing, I saw Mr. O'Brien deliver his Maiden speech in the House of Commons so I know he was sworn in. According to Robert Marleau (Clerk of the House of Commons at the time) and Camille Montpetit Mr. O'Brien in November 1988 "was declared the winner by 99 votes, was sworn in, and participated in the Canada-U.S. free-trade agreement debate in the short-lived First Session of the Thirty-Fourth Parliament".


 * Nymphetamine labyrinth (talk) 18:13, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Nymphetamine labyrinth (talk) 18:13, 21 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Controverted elections are not notability claims, and no notability claim that he could make ever justifies the garbage sourcing you used here. If he isn't listed by Parliament's website now as ever having been an MP, but rather Bevilacqua is listed as having been the original MP as of election day 1988 regardless of any legal wrangling that may have existed at the time as to who was or wasn't the rightful winner, then claims and counterclaims about the dispute don't make a person "inherently" notable in and of themselves in the absence of much better sources than you used. Erik Nielsen isn't notable because the Yukon seat in 1957 was controverted; he's notable because he won the redo election and stayed an MP for another 30 years. If he had lost the redo and never run again, and thus couldn't claim to have any other notability claim besides "challenger in a disputed election", then he would not have an article on that basis at all. Bearcat (talk) 18:27, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

OK I have found the Hansard record of O'Brien's Maiden speech in the House of Commons.

https://parl.canadiana.ca/view/oop.debates_HOC3401_01/800?r=0&s=1


 * It doesn't matter whether there's a Hansard record or not. It matters whether he's considered now to have ever been the rightful MP — which, as I've demonstrated, he isn't, as Maurizio Bevilacqua is deemed by Parliament's website to have been the MP for York Centre all the way back to election day 1988. Hansard is a primary source, not a notability-making or independent reliable source: notability does not come from the things a person did, it comes from the amount of media coverage they did or didn't get for doing the things they did. Bearcat (talk) 07:22, 26 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete standalone article but merge the information about the election somewhere if it's not already on the site. Poses an interesting question - do you pass WP:NPOL if you were sworn in, but your swearing in was voided? Personally, I don't think Mr. O'Brien is notable. I did find a bit of news coverage, but it was sort of noted more as a curiosity than front-page news because of a back and forth recount, similar to . I think the event itself is notable and should be covered somewhere, but I don't think that makes him notable, and he doesn't look notable for any other reason. (If it's already on the site, great.) SportingFlyer  T · C  21:53, 21 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep The page is notable and must not be deleted. The references are not garbage they are my country's House of Commons of Canada and Supreme Court etc. You say you canot find news coverage but over thirty years ago, there was no such internet News publishing and you would need to go to a Library and search microfiche and there you will find tons of material.  Wikipedia is better served by carrying stories of notable events and in my country this is a notable event proving that DEMOCRACY WORKS.

, who was at the centre of an election dispute in 1988 but nevertheless was sworn into office as elected and made his Maiden Speech in the House of Commons of Canada on 23 December 1988.
 * Just to be clear, I searched a newspaper archive. SportingFlyer  T · C  11:22, 22 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Thank you. I have looked over the years and never noticed any significant numbers of analogue records. Mos papers make that clear. But in the libraries there are tons on this subject. I have found some more but I do not know how to 'Wikipedia' those. I will figure it out.


 * Meanwhile I wrote this piece in the context of current democratic events in Canada and the USA. Further, I knew of Nielsen's contested election because I read his book, "The House is Not A Home". And I also knew of O'Brien's York North Fiasco. We did a case study in school. It is used as a significant precedent of HOW DEMOCRACY WORKS. These two men did this tedious work to correct elections where every vote makes a difference with painstaking efforts regardless that it be or not be to their benefit. Neither could gain---they only would get a null election and a by-election.


 * As we are bombarded daily in Canada from the United States with all sorts of threats to disenfranchise millions of voters, I thought this would be relevant as an historical marker for how things are done with civility and democratic values.


 * Today, this is important and it is indeed encyclopedic. The University of Toronto team that has chronicalized Canadian Hansard noted "The transcript of Parliamentary Debates (“Hansard”) is a 150-year running record of Canadian political history. The richness of this record presents a needle-in-a-haystack problem of enormous magnitude. At a rate of a novel’s worth of reading each day, it would take 66 years to read the transcripts of the House and the Senate. It would take a further 28 years to read what was added in the interim."

Nymphetamine labyrinth (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 23:06, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, but it does not make O'Brien notable. We have rules for notability here, and what you have done is written about an event, which does deserve to be in the encyclopaedia, but you have written the event around a specific person instead of writing it about the event. As Bearcat notes, the information would be better served either at Bevilacqua's article, at the article about the constituency, or, possibly, a standalone article named 1988 York North constituency election (or something similar.) It does not mean O'Brien is notable enough for his own article, which is why I !voted "merge" above. SportingFlyer  T · C  23:38, 23 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Thank you.

O'Brien is notable because it is O'Brien who did this work in 'O'Brien vs Hamel' the latter being the Canadian Chief Returning Officer who ran the election (terribly in the case of York North. There were multiple outcomes from the RO in fact every time they recounted they had a different result to the point where it was impossible to unequivocally determine the intentions of the electorate.). I talked to one of the lawyers working for counsel Ronald Rolls on the matter and she said they had rooms full of volunteers working on the Petition to the Supreme Court, with O'Brien and staff, for 8 months.


 * I do not degrade the rules of notability. I initially responded to the complainant who basically said I wrote a bunch of lies. He said O'Brien was never sworn in, never an MP, etc. That is simply untrue and I am not a liar. I was jumped with this 'deletion' in the midst of working on the article. It probably should have been sandboxed first. My bad. But the cites are all there and an abundance of proof which is how this deletion request was called. So you are on a different track than the deletion request to which I responded.


 * As far as proving notability is concerned, this is not about the internet's digital data it is about actual newspaper clippings on Microfiche. They do not exist online. I repeat, any claim that this has been researched to a negative outcome disproving notability by other than me thus far is patently disingenuous because the data relates to an era 'before such records were digitalized around the time of Windows 95 and Windows 98'. The amount of work involved in digitizing data before 1990 is colossal. Read back to the quote from University of Toronto Professors. In two parts I made it clear that I need to spend time in a physical library and go through the microfiche if my concept oof notability is not accepted. The work involved in changing the statutes is done by O'Brien and 'owned by O'Brien' which I deem is self-evident. But the scholarly articles on such are in old newspaper clippings. I need Librarian assistance to get what I find digitalized. I would need the time to do that and that is awkward because of the pandemic and the major libraries being on lockdown or limited hours. Again my point is that the case of Nielsen (1957), which availed the 'Controverted Election Act', introduced the importance of the Act's intentions, but 'OBrien vs Hamel' opened the door to an amended 'Federal Elections Act' which included an enhanced variant of 'Controverted Election Act' to raise the importance in anticipation of many future events (which there have been) and which all cite 'O'Brien' and 'Nielsen'. That being said, I further adduce that O'Brien changed the course of history for Canada. He is the precedent for the changing of the Act. His work and accomplishment made the electoral process better and shone a light on how to deal with such matters in a civil and structured manner. This is very important. Please skip the politics. This is not about Bevilaqua or Liberals vs Conservatives or whatever. It is about how to deal with divisiveness in politics when it emerges in democratic elections. In the alternative, democracy fails in the darkness, with malfeasance. I submit that two articles are needed, not merging

Nymphetamine labyrinth (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 05:50, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I disagree - there's a number of newspapers from the time online which all show coverage of the event but not necessarily of O'Brien, and O'Brien was never an MP - his term was voided, as was made clear by a newspaper contemporaneous with the event (someone died before taking office, so his family got six months' pay, but O'Brien got cut off.) The vast majority of the sources in the article are primary and sourced to the legislature as well - they do not show his notability, which requires secondary sources. Again, the best thing to do here is to cover the event, which clearly passes WP:GNG, and not the person, who does not, especially apart from his coverage in the event. SportingFlyer  T · C  09:38, 25 November 2020 (UTC)


 * "O'Brien was Never an MP" Not that that is the point but there is no such process for voiding a sworn in MP's term in office. You adduce facts because you say they are facts. And by the way, you are probably searching the wrong name. Regardless of what you type, Google will change Micheal (Gaelic) to Michael (Hebrew). Look carefully and select the correct spelling. The correct spelling is Irish version and there is a huge difference. "There are more M O'Brien on the planet than any other clan" is what one librarian told me. https://parl.canadiana.ca/view/oop.debates_HOC3401_01/870?r=0&s=1 << Official records (Constituencies Served in the House of Commons) record both O'Brien and Bevilaqua having served as MPs in the 34th Parliament, unequivocally.   You have no proof of argument. Or in the alternative maybe you have not even read the article? Or in another alternative maybe you read the article before it was completed?  ANd it is pointless searching newspaper databases online for stories prior to 1995. That research has to be done on microfiche to be thorough. You argue sideways like a crab claiming facts to be such on your say so and then resort to antagonism when you feel as if you have lost your way. I was taking this seriously. I have provided substantial data in support of my arguments. You ridicule me. Regardless of your ridicule I disagree with burying this article. And I want the time to visit a library and get the microfiche's I want digitalized. I am surprised at your emotionalism. It reminds me of a passionate admin about five years ago screaming at me that X-Japan did not influence Luna Sea as if their life depended on their being correct. That was subjective. But this is historical fact. The anchor is the person who did the work despite it having no benefit to him, just a matter of serving the electorate in determining an unequivocal result.. In the Work that I have done already in the Library I have an article by Peter Murphy for CTV network  who goes into great detail on the importance of this work. Anyway. I must go. Peace.

https://parl.canadiana.ca/view/oop.proc_HOC_3401_1/34?r=0&s=1 List of Elected and sworn in members including O'Brien https://parl.canadiana.ca/view/oop.debates_HOC3401_01/916?r=0&s=1 1988/1989 list of Members in the Free Trade Debate Includes O'Brien Nymphetamine labyrinth (talk) 18:36, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
 * As I've already pointed out several times: either find him in Parliament's self-published directory of its own members — which you won't, because he isn't there — or you've got nothing. You say there's no process for voiding a sworn-in member's term in office? Well, obviously there is, because he isn't in Parliament's directory of its own members. Bearcat (talk) 15:17, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – bradv  🍁  03:29, 1 December 2020 (UTC) Nymphetamine labyrinth (talk) 21:04, 8 December 2020 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Merge Doesn't seem to be notable enough on his own, could be merged into an article on the election or to one talking about the snafu. He hasn't done much himself to warrant a whole article. Oaktree b (talk) 22:41, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep [Revote struck] O'Brien is notable because it is O'Brien who did this work in 'O'Brien vs Hamel' which was a huge undertaking with the only possible outcome being an unequivocal determination of the voters' intention.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 01:00, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Nymphetamine labyrinth (talk) 21:04, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep [Revote struck] O'Brien is notable because it is O'Brien who did this work in 'O'Brien vs Hamel' which was a huge undertaking with the only possible outcome being an unequivocal determination of the voters' intention. At no point in history has a candidate been sworn in, sat through an entire session of a Parliament and then replaced in office by a recount. The HoC Records show that two members for the same riding were sworn in and sat in the 34th parliament. https://parl.canadiana.ca/view/oop.debates_HOC3401_01/916?r=0&s=1 This is not a parochial issue as has happened in this talk page. O'Brien according to public records is a Liberal today in a Toronto Riding. He ran as a Conservative in York North because that was the deal he made with Tony Roman according to Richmond Hill Liberal.
 * Please note that while you are allowed to comment in an AFD discussion as often as you like, you are not allowed to "vote" more than once. That means you are not allowed to preface any of your followup comments with a restatement of the bolded "keep" that you've already given — followup comments are comments, not new votes. And incidentally, neither of these comments are adding anything new that hasn't already been addressed in this discussion. Bearcat (talk) 14:50, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 15:56, 16 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep the historical record seems clear that he was sworn in to the Canadian House of Commons and participated in that body before his election was declared void. We don't "give" notability for winning elections, we "give" it for being a member of a parliament.  The article isn't great, but that's not a reason for deletion.  I understand (but disagree with) the argument to merge this to an article about the event of the disputed election and/or the by-election, but I'm not sure those articles exist; I don't understand the reason for deleting it entirely. power~enwiki ( π,  ν ) 02:56, 23 December 2020 (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.