Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rick Boychuk


 * 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 Kept. I have read though the comments below and looked through the article. Although Rick Boychuk has never rose above the office of a city councillor (sidenote: Realkyhick...we use genderless titles in Canada so its councillor and not councilman or councilwoman), he has received extensive coverage in a notable newspaper: the Winnipeg Free Press &mdash; the oldest newspaper in Western Canada. As that is the case, my decision is to keep the article. (closed by User:Nat)

Rick Boychuk

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Non-notable politician. Never rose above office of city councilman. Fails WP:N. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 07:10, 9 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Could you please wait until I've finished the article? I'd obviously prefer that it kept in any event, but would ask that that this vote be deferred on procedural grounds until I've finished writing the piece.  CJCurrie (talk) 07:12, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment AFDs normally last five days. That should be sufficient time to show sources of notability. --Dhartung | Talk 07:44, 9 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete. Article looks pretty much finished. But if I see any sort of notability established I will happily modify my !vote. -- brew crewer  (yada, yada) 07:23, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Provisional Delete, does not seem notable at present. However, if CJCurrie can provide additional cited claims of notability, then please disregard this vote.  Lankiveil (complaints 07:25, 9 February 2008 (UTC).


 * Weak keep article doesn't make it clear so I'm not certain it's the same person but he might be the editor of Canadian Geographic 2nd source, which appears notable. My !vote could go either way pending clarification on whether this is the same person. Travellingcari (talk) 07:27, 9 February 2008 (UTC) confirmed not the same person but retaining keep, he seems to meet WP:BIO per the material added since this nomination was made. Travellingcari (talk) 21:39, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment I'm pretty sure they're different. The editor has been so since 1995 and lives in Ottawa from what I can tell. --Dhartung | Talk 07:44, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment thanks I wasn't sure and kept getting bumped down by pay gates so I couldn't verify or not in either direction. Travellingcari (talk) 08:01, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
 * The neat thing about the RB at CG is that he answers emails. So I just sent him one to find out for sure. :) Franamax (talk) 09:48, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Definitely different people, confirmed by email. Franamax (talk) 18:02, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah, not many politicians answer e-mails. :-) - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 20:00, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for tracking down the confirmation, or confirmation of not -- would that be unconfirmation? as it may be ;) Travellingcari (talk) 21:38, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Not sure what the wiki-speak is, maybe !confirmed? Anyway, hurray for the Rick Boychuk at the incomparable Canadian Geographic, let's all head over there and improve the article! Franamax (talk) 03:25, 11 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I'd like to point out that Wikipedia's guidelines on notability permit the inclusion of articles on municipal politicians who have received extensive coverage in secondary sources. The precise wording designates as notable "A politician who has received "significant press coverage" has been written about, in depth, independently in multiple news feature articles, by journalists."  Boychuk satisfies this criteria, and (in my view) the article should be kept accordingly.  (I'm still not finished, btw, and I should clarify that there are several more sources than those currently included in the article.)  CJCurrie (talk) 07:35, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment: Virtually every city council member in every city in North America gets mentioned by his local newspaper at least every couple of weeks. What makes Boychuk rise above other of his level of office? Nothing that you've asserted so far. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 07:43, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Defer Am I reading the history right? AfD within three minutes? How about a two-week interlude, if it's not (much) better then, I'll gladly vote to delete. But three minutes to establish notability? C'mon... Franamax (talk) 08:24, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Quick update: I don't currently have the time to make an extended case for keeping this article. I'd like to reinerate my request that this decision be deferred for now.  CJCurrie (talk) 09:13, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
 * You have five days. So your request is rejected. Punkmorten (talk) 10:31, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the comment, but isn't that decision the closer's to make? Franamax (talk) 10:44, 9 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep Seems to satify WP:BIO: Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage. Colonel Warden (talk) 13:50, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Weak keep City councilman from a major Canadian city ... it would seem that precedent dictates a keep, since we have articles on city councilmen from other major American and Canadian cities. Let's give CJCurrie a chance to improve this--then I'll gladly change to keep. Blueboy96 14:24, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment: WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a valid reason to keep. The other articles should also stand on their own merits, or else they should be here in AfD as well. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 18:11, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Point of clarification (wow, slipping back into high school debate days) ... my view is that mayors and city councilmen of major cities are notable on paper. Let's see some more sources, and I'll gladly change to keep.  Blueboy96 19:05, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Definitely agree on mayors, but not necessarily on council members, unless they've made a name for themselves running for higher office (or, more often, getting trouble somehow). - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 19:42, 9 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep For me the sources in the article are easily significant press coverage so meets WP:BIO. Davewild (talk) 19:47, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
 * What we've got here is an article with 20 media references and a pretty substantial summary of his political activities, for a city councillor in a city large and important enough that the common precedent in favour of big-city councillors can be applied here. So it satisfies WP:BIO, WP:RS and WP:V, and survives the admittedly non-definitive but still highly persuasive WP:OUTCOMES test — and WP:N, at its core, says only that an article needs to meet WP:BIO, WP:RS and WP:V, not that a person needs to have achieved a certain specific quantifiable amount of fame. So I fail to see the problem here. Keep. Bearcat (talk) 21:09, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions.   -- the wub  "?!"  18:38, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions.   -- the wub  "?!"  18:39, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. Meets WP:N guideline that it have significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject thus making it an article capable of meeting the inclusion policies of Verifiable and NPOV. It was also nominated out of recommended procedure as per WP:AFD. Double Blue  (Talk) 03:06, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. City councillor of a major city. -- Earl Andrew - talk 21:45, 11 February 2008 (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.