Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Murray Markin


 * 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. Seraphimblade Talk to me 20:43, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Murray Markin

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Delete. WP:BLP of a politician, notable only for serving on the municipal council of a suburban city and as a non-winning candidate for higher office. While we accept Toronto's city councillors as notable under WP:NPOL because it's an international global city, that does not extend to the councillors of the pre-amalgamation suburbs -- prior to 1997, the notability pass only goes to the core city and not to Etobicoke or Scarborough or North York. This article does not demonstrate that he's significantly more notable than the norm, however; it's based mostly on WP:ROUTINE local coverage of the election campaigns themselves. There are also BLP issues here, as he was convicted of a crime in 1984. However, that's not a good basis for a Wikipedia article about someone who didn't already pass our notability criteria for other reasons -- given that as far as we know he's still living as a private citizen, and his crime was a relatively minor one of little enduring import, for WP:BLPPRIVACY reasons he should be allowed to just put it behind him instead of having it immortalized on one of the most widely read websites in the world. Bearcat (talk) 20:52, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 20:55, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 20:55, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Weak Keep It seems that you are trying to elicit sympathy for Markin in your attempt to remove this article. Several politicians have had brushes with law pre or post term. I don't think that should be a factor in the removal decision. His notability as a politician is questionable except for the fact that he was as an ardent supporter of the Spadina expressway. Removal of this article may give the impression that there was not as much support for the expressway as there was in North York. I think that alone warrants a vote for keeping this article. The other thing is that someone did go to the trouble of researching this article and reliably citing it which also should be a factor for the keep side. EncyclopediaUpdaticus (talk) 22:19, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment Where was the discussion that established the consensus that "While we accept Toronto's city councillors as notable under WP:NPOL because it's an international global city, that does not extend to the councillors of the pre-amalgamation suburbs -- prior to 1997, the notability pass only goes to the core city and not to Etobicoke or Scarborough or North York"? AusLondonder (talk) 00:56, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
 * It's a longstanding consensus that the presumption of notability that's extended to city councillors in global cities does not extend to city councillors in those cities' suburbs. A city councillor in a suburban municipality of Toronto can still occasionally clear the bar if he can be well-sourced over GNG as more than just locally notable, but he's not automatically entitled to an article just because he exists. And the place for content about support for or opposition to the Spadina Expressway is in Spadina Expressway, not in spinning off separate BLPs of every single person who ever expressed an opinion one way or the other. Bearcat (talk) 18:03, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Keep EncyclopediaUpdaticus makes some very good points. I would add that it seems that editors interpret the position requirements in a way that does not advance Wikipedia's mission to "empower and engage people around the world to collect and develop educational content". If an elected official does not have a position of a certain rank, that in itself is not a reason for deletion. It only means that the position alone - absent good sourcing, additional coverage, or other elements of notability - do not satisfy the requirements for inclusion. A solidly written article about a low level official needs to be included. As the process stands right now, I am concerned that great articles might be deleted merely because someone was not high enough in government. Bangabandhu (talk) 23:24, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
 * So where's the solid substance and good sourcing here? "Presented a $1,000 audio-visual presentation to the mayor and council of Wrocław, Poland on the culture, history and topography of North York" is a reason for a Wikipedia article somehow? Bearcat (talk) 18:03, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 01:02, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
 * That's one line from a much larger, well sourced entry. He's served as a diplomat for his community which I think is worth including. I wish that all the cites were available electronically, but I don't think that makes them unreliable. Bangabandhu (talk) 22:38, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete a local city council member and failed candidate at a higher level. This is not enough to show that he is notable. The sources are all routine coverage, no clear notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:46, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete -- the sources do not establish notability. Separately, the subject appears to currently be a private citizen, with the info about his arrest being an invasion of privacy. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:49, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 21:41, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep - perhaps a suburban councillor wouldn't be notable for his career alone. But looking at some the sources in the article on-line "City issues 73 repair orders on Murray Markin's house". Toronto Star. December 1, 1976. p. A10 is quite an in-depth feature, and more than meets WP:GNG requirements. Combined with the news reports of this cocaine arrest, he more than meets WP:GNG. Nfitz (talk) 01:58, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete - per, far too much information on personal affairs for somebody who probably fails WP:NPOLITICIAN.  Dr Strauss   talk  13:04, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete. local politician holding no major position, even locally. I don't se how any of the referencesare in depth--they all refer to trivial local events, or mere notices of appearances at events. Tripping over a manhole cover does not make someone notable. Nor does being arrested for cocaine possession.  DGG ( talk ) 04:38, 5 March 2017 (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.