Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nick Ternette


 * 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. Kurykh (talk) 19:29, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Nick Ternette

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Delete. Biography of a person notable only as a non-winning candidate for municipal office, minimally sourced to a smattering of WP:ROUTINE local coverage in the local media with just one obituary to suggest any wider notice at all. There's just not enough substance here to justify an article, or enough sourcing to clear WP:GNG. Bearcat (talk) 01:52, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep or wait the sources are legit, and I think he passes GNG, as being a public figure, though local.L3X1 My Complaint Desk 02:06, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
 * A figure of purely local notability, such as a local activist who ran for but never won any political office that would constitute an automatic WP:NPOL pass, needs to be sourceable to more than just the routine level of local media coverage that would be expected to exist before they can claim to have passed WP:GNG. If there were 15 or 20 different sources being cited here, then GNG would be passed — but just three or four sources isn't enough. Bearcat (talk) 16:11, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
 * How would you characterize the Globe and Mail article about him? Or the CBC's coverage? What more does one have to do as a figure in Winnipeg politics to achieve notability? Bangabandhu (talk) 03:02, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
 * The Globe and Mail is a simple obituary, published in the paper's column where anybody can eulogize anybody they want, even the old woman down the street whose notability claim would amount to "she turned out to be a nice person once I got to know her". (And no, I'm not making shit up just to be dismissive: this "Lives Lived" column about the deaths of ordinary non-notable people really does exist.) So it would be acceptable for some supplementary verification of facts after passage of GNG had already been demonstrated (frex, by Globe and Mail coverage of his career in local politics contemporaneous to the time when that career was underway), but cannot be a bringer of GNG in and of itself because it's WP:ROUTINE local coverage of the type that a figure of exclusively local notability would be merely expected to have generated. The CBC coverage comes from the CBC's local bureau in Winnipeg, not the CBC's national news division, so again it would be fine for verification of facts after passage of GNG had already been demonstrated but cannot be a bringer of GNG in and of itself. What one has to do as a figure in Winnipeg politics to achieve notability is either hold an NPOL-passing position (mayor, MLA, MP), or be sourceable to more than just local media as notable beyond Winnipeg for more than just existing. Bearcat (talk) 18:09, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Alright, I don't know the nuances of Canadian media. If I find 15 different sources, will you not delete this page? Bangabandhu (talk) 04:36, 23 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Strong delete per nominator. 2001:569:70DD:7500:39EA:19D8:DF90:EF4D (talk) 19:50, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 16:11, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Manitoba-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 16:11, 18 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete - A losing candidate for a municipal elections. Nothing but local coverage. Does not meet notability standards.Glendoremus (talk) 05:27, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete defeated candidates for mayor are not notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:23, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep as its almost comical that this person would be considered nothing more than a "non-winning candidate". The extant sources are more than adequate to establish his notability; there are plenty more not cited that describe his writing and activism. Such an interesting person and entry, such a disservice to readers to delete. Bangabandhu (talk) 03:00, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
 * We do not keep articles just because somebody might think the topic was "interesting". We keep articles based on whether the topic passes a notability criterion or not. I'd also note that for someone whose userpage identifies you as living in Washington DC, you sure seem a lot more interested in rushing to the ramparts for Winnipeg's local city councillors and political activists than you are the numerous articles about US politicians of comparable local notability who are also up for AFD right now. Are you maybe just wikistalking me to contradict any AFD I initiate on a politician instead of actually personally caring that much about Winnipeg? Bearcat (talk) 18:18, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Putting aside the nativist implications of why someone from the US might want to edit foreign pages, that comment is about as unfair as it is inaccurate. If you'll look at my edit history you'll see that I've taken identical positions on similar articles unrelated to you or Canada, like this one. What the Winnipeg entries seem to have in common, other than your nomination of them, is that they're better sourced and written than much of what appears on this page. I do think that Wikipedia should be about creating good content and that deletion should be a last resort, which is seldom the case in these discussions. In this instance, the subject is routinely referred to as the most prominent activist in the city. From just a couple articles, there are interesting, even fascinating anecdotes about his work, like how he persevered in his work even after even having his legs amputated.Bangabandhu (talk) 04:34, 23 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete--Per . Winged Blades Godric 09:06, 26 February 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.