Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nicholas Bachynsky

 This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was Keep both. Scimitar 28 June 2005 14:21 (UTC)  This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was Keep both. Scimitar 28 June 2005 14:34 (UTC)

Nicholas Bachynsky & Peter Wagner (Manitoba politician)
402 Google hits for the first one. Hits for "Peter Wagner Manitoba" only shows Wikipedia and some other websites that are not related to what I searched for. Non-notable people. ---User:Hottentot

Comment. Wow, it seems like the person who started these articles (User:CJCurrie) has also made hundreds of articles on non-notable politicians. What should we do about it?
 * What to do? Keep them all. Elected office at the state/provincial level = notable politician. A &#1080; D &#1103; 01D  TALK  EMAIL  01:58, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep as per Android. Elected officials are notable and they don't all have webpages or web references (this is where the Google test is flawed, IMO). 23skidoo 02:29, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete I don't think state legislators are inherently notable. --Xcali 04:17, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. Both elected provincial MLAs. Bachynsky was a Member of the Legislative Assembly for 36 years and Speaker for 8 years. Quite notable. Double Blue  (Talk) 04:30, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * P.S. Peter Wagner does not have a VfD tag. Double Blue  (Talk) 04:33, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * I added one, I was quite shocked to discover neither pages mentioned here had one. --[[Image:Ottawa flag.png|20px]] Spinboy 05:09, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Keep as per DoubleBlue--[[Image:Ottawa flag.png|20px]] Spinboy 05:09, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. NatusRoma 05:13, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. Elected provincial representatives and certainly achieving the role of Speaker makes you notable enough for Wikipedia. Capitalistroadster 06:13, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. Even if they are not notable, they are certainly verifiable. - SimonP 12:31, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep both (but please don't combine VfDs together). Both these politicians are notable enough. --Deathphoenix 14:22, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. "Wow, (User:CJCurrie) has also made hundreds of articles.... What should we do about it?" Gadzooks! Someone has been adding verifable content to Wikipedia! We must do something about it! Indeed, we should give CJCurrie our thanks for all of the time he has spent creating well-written articles about real political figures. Or we can try to shoot him down because he's writing articles about people we may not be interested in. These people are notable in Manitoba. Let these articles stand. Ground Zero 14:52, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Delete the former and keep Wagner: Far too granular. Notable politicians have an effect on the world.  If their effect is merely the election, then their names can be in a list of officials in a year.  Given that elections may be every year, there are going to be untold numbers of people in these positions.  Remember, folks:  there is a HUGE difference between containing the information and suggesting that there must be a biography of that person.  Geogre 15:58, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment: There is no consensus that "notability" should be a criterion for inclusion. See Jimbo Wales' view on notability, as expressed in the poll where notability failed to become an accepted reason for deletion. Ground Zero 16:02, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Inherently, it is the criterion behind all the others. We can call it "significance" or "importance," if we like, but it amounts to the same thing.  I am and have ever been quite consistent in the principles I apply to VfD votes. Geogre 16:12, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * But if one were to apply your very high standard of "having an effect on the world", it seems to be we would eliminate quite a lot of Wikipedia content: (1) all backbench Members of Parliament around the world; (2) state governors and their equivalents; (3) probably most cabinet ministers, other than ministers of finance, foreign affairs, and defence; (4) mayors of cities; and so on. If we set out to do that, then I think we have to giver serious consideration to the thousands of articles about various elements of the Star Trek, Star Wars, Buffy and Lord of the Rings universes. After all, these articles are about fictional characters. Do they affect world events? They do affect the lives of people who are interested in them, just as the Governor of Alaska affects Alaskans, and member of the Manitoba legislature affect Manitobans. If there are people who are interested in these people enough to write verifable, properly-linked and formatted non-vanity articles, I see no reason to cull them out. If we set a high standard of notability, then how is Wikipedia different from Brittanica or World Book? (Other than, of course, having lots of typos and grammatical errors.) Ground Zero 17:28, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Would people ever want to know more information about these people, their times, and what happened. I argue, yes. What does it harm Wikipedia to have good concise articles on these former elected representatives? I think it helps. A World of Information at your keyboard. Therefore, my easy vote for keep above. Double Blue  (Talk) 19:15, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Perhaps not surprisingly, my vote is to keep. CJCurrie 19:20, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. I'm not much of an inclusionist, but when it comes to province-level politicians, absolutely they should stay. These sort of articles, showing how comprehensive Wikipedia can be, are some of our strongest arguments when comparing to Britannica or encarta or whatever. --Scimitar 19:30, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * There's already a fairly clear precedent in favour of keeping people who have served in state/provincial legislatures, and no legitimate reason for singling out ones in Manitoba as somehow less notable than ones elsewhere. Keep. Bearcat 21:21, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Indeed I am quite surprised to have seen this here. I was under the impression that all provincial level politicians that were elected were notable enough for articles and am in fact working on creating articles on all of the members of the past two legislatures in New Brunswick as part of my personal project to have a wholly complete set of articles to go in tandem with New Brunswick general election, 2007 when the time comes.  I would certainly hope that I am not wasting my time.  Strong keep - Jord 01:09, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * ''The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.
 * ''The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.