Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rick Mantey


 * 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. Secret account 17:47, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Rick Mantey

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

The Usher of the Black Rod is a purely ceremonial position in a Westminster-style legislature, with no actual political authority — the position makes him an employee of the legislature, so unlike the actual MLAs this position doesn't confer a presumption of notability under WP:NPOL. But the volume of sourcing here isn't substantive enough to get him over WP:GNG, and the claimed controversy over his travel spending just makes him a WP:BLP1E. His name is already listed in Legislative Assembly of Saskatchewan's subsection on its Ushers of the Black Rod, which is the level of coverage he warrants in an encyclopedia — there's simply no need for a separate WP:BLP here if this is all that can actually be written about him. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 20:56, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
 * He has a very wide and illustrious political experience and footprint within the Province of Saskatchewan. And he is more noticeable in the provincial newspapers and was the main person of interest in the provincial expense scandal in CBC News this year summer. I think you seriously underestimated his influence just because he isn't working in the federal level. (It's really disappointing to see how Wikipedians neglect Canadian provincial politicians quite often.) But anyways, I try to put more citations and pieces of info to improve this article. Keep Komitsuki (talk) 03:24, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Wikipedians, for the record, do not have a pattern of "neglecting" Canadian provincial politicians. Provincial politicians are entitled to exactly the same set of considerations as federal politicians are — for example, every single incumbent provincial legislator in any Canadian province or territory already has an article, without even one single solitary MLA in the entire country missing or redlinked. And that's a better record than the US, where lots of current state-level legislators are still redlinks. (Further, as the nominator here I should also point out that I'm just about the last person who could ever actually be accused of discounting the notability of provincial politicians — I was the initial creator of well over 90 per cent of those articles.) But you still haven't added any claim to this article that gets this person past NPOL — being an unelected civil servant does not confer an automatic presumption of notability. And every single new source you've added to the article since I listed it here is a primary source (government's own press releases, etc.) which cannot augment his notability at all, so you still haven't improved his claim to a WP:GNG pass either. And finally, it's not a provincial vs. federal "double standard" — if he'd held the exact same roles working for the federal government instead of the provincial government in Saskatchewan he still wouldn't qualify for a standalone BLP on Wikipedia, because it's the roles themselves that aren't inherently notable, not the level of government he did them for. Bearcat (talk) 20:40, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Instead of you listing out your complaints here, how about you helping me improving this article? I think it's more productive than acting offensively towards another Wikipedian. You look like you're a Canadian citizen. (I'm not) Maybe you have better insights than me when it comes to this. So, come on. I demand you to help me. Komitsuki (talk) 22:41, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
 * That's not how Wikipedia works. Responding to points of disagreement in a deletion discussion is not "acting offensively towards another Wikipedian" — it's how the discussion process works, and your sensitivity settings will need to be adjusted downward if you have a problem with that. And I'm under no obligation to comply with a "demand" to help you improve an article for which I'm the person who nominated it for deletion in the first place. And yes, I am a Canadian, and my "better insights than you" are that there isn't a serious notability claim to be had here — the most "notable" thing here is a purely ceremonial role that doesn't confer any political authority, and that fact is the "special Canadian insight" that I've already given. You have every right in the world to disagree with me — that's why I put it up for discussion rather than simply speedying it on sight — but kindly refrain from attacking other people just for disagreeing with you. Bearcat (talk) 19:08, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

"the most 'notable' thing here is a purely ceremonial role that doesn't confer any political authority"
 * First, I edited this article several times and the most notable thing that Rick Mantey has ever done to make the news all over Canada for two months was from the fact that he was involved in a big expense-related scandal. Ever since I edit this article I never tried to emphasize on his former duty as the Black Rod. Second, The most ceremonial thing that Rick Mantey has ever done was the Black Rod and there is only one sentence about him being the Black Rod. And I mean only one sentence. Third, should we delete Kevin S. MacLeod, the Black Rod for the Canadian Senate? Almost all of this article's content is about his ceremonial duties and his ceremonial role is the only notable thing about him. And fourth, I believe your tone was rather aggressive towards me. Tone your voice down a little and strive for a win-win solution. The whole reason Wikipedia isn't dynamic anymore is that everybody loses and moderators and/or people who propose deletions express aggressively toward ordinary or new contributors like myself. So, I beg you. Strive for a win-wing solution, please. Komitsuki (talk) 00:45, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I change the category and the description. Would that fit much better? Because since he is not a politician, but a civil servant? Komitsuki (talk) 07:51, 13 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:13, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:13, 10 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete. There are two ways Rick Mantey could achieve notability. The first is by satisfying WP:POLITICIAN. In effect, that would get him the presumption of notability, without having to satisfy the general notability guidelines. Unfortunately, there's no way he satisfies the enumerated requirements. Thus, he must satisfy the general notability guidelines. The only coverage of note is about a one time event: the expense scandal. Other references are just in passing, e.g., an article about iPads that mentions his name; that does not qualify as significant coverage. --Larry/Traveling_Man (talk) 06:52, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
 * First of all, he's not a politician. I changed it to public servant which fits his role. So, the WP:POLITICIAN doesn't apply here. Second, one big coverage of him is enough. This scandal involving him is one of the biggest in the provincial levels especially in the Canadian Prairie region. And there are tons of stud articles here with each of them having only one major coverage. And by the way, Don Head (public servant)'s article doesn't have anything notable to readers at all and should we delete this Don Head article? The problem is this: who gets to judge an article's notability when everyone's biased or of lack of knowledge? This article is proposed for deletion because of my mistake of catagorizing this Rick Mantey article as a politican. Komitsuki (talk) 07:45, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
 * But actually, there are two cases of notability. Whether one thinks of ceremonial functions as wasteful or not. Rick Mantey had been the very first Black Rod in Sasketchewan. Komitsuki (talk) 07:50, 15 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete: A subject doesn't pass the notability bar because you think he's done something important. He passes the notability bar when he passes the GNG or a subordinate notability criteria.  This guy hasn't.  There's certainly coverage of this minor scandal, but that falls under WP:ONEEVENT. Nha Trang 20:14, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
 * You're very wrong to think it was a minor scandal. It was a major provincial-level scandal. And second, he's one of the rarest Black Rods all over the Commonwealth Realm to be appointed in the 21st century. I believe this article passes the general notability to the fullest. And let's not argue with it. And you unfortunately don't know anything what I'm saying. I pity myself for encountering this misfortune. No wonder why Wikipedia is in decline, right? Komitsuki (talk) 23:17, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
 * For people who think his expense scandal is not note-worthy, these two articles ( and ) was written 1-2 days ago. This scandal was first publicly discussed in last April of this year. And it's still discussed back and forth even today in the middle of October of this year. Think about it. This is a very serious governmental issue in a rather very underpopulated province called Saskatchewan. And this article describes a guy about his provincial career in Saskatchewan. Komitsuki (talk) 06:51, 18 October 2014 (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.