Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Scott Fielding


 * 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. v/r - TP 00:27, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Scott Fielding

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Not notable. Philafrenzy (talk) 07:41, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete. There are no references to prove the notability. MehranVB  ☻talk 08:06, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete - Not notable No real sense of any assertion of notability. (Note AfD tag on the article appears not link correctly here - red-link)  Velella  Velella Talk 12:06, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Manitoba-related deletion discussions.  — • Gene93k (talk) 13:54, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions.  — • Gene93k (talk) 13:55, 5 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Sourcing improvements are certainly needed, but the consensus has already established that city councillors in major metropolitan cities are always notable enough for inclusion in Wikipedia, and Fielding is not somehow a uniquely non-notable member of his major metropolitan city council; valid sources are out there if somebody gets off their ass to find them. Keep but tag for improvement. Bearcat (talk) 04:46, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete. Non-notable city councillor. Fails WP:GNG. Me-123567-Me (talk) 16:29, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Weak keep. He passes WP:POLITICIAN as a member of the main citywide government or council of a major metropolitan city. My personal opinion is that this criteria may be too inclusive. The criteria also fail to define what constitutes a major metropolitan city (is there any other kind of city?). Pburka (talk) 18:31, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep - passes WP:GNG: significant coverage by independent reliable sources. Passes WP:POLITICIAN: included in "members of the main citywide government or council of a major metropolitan city". References have been added to support both of these assertions, and it's quite clear that the individual meets our notability guidelines. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:32, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I should note that per WP:OUTCOMES city councillor's aren't notable just for being on city council. Me-123567-Me (talk) 20:48, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I should note per the same page they aren't non-notable just because they're on city council, and that even if OUTCOMES argued this GNG and N both trump it. Do you have a substantial and correct argument to make about this specific city councillor? Nikkimaria (talk) 22:32, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
 * City council doesn't make them notable alone. They need to have done something else besides being on city council, which Fielding hasn't done. Me-123567-Me (talk) 22:49, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
 * No, according to both N and GNG Fielding is notable because he has received significant coverage in independent reliable sources. Which policy argues that someone who is "only" a councillor for a major city is not notable despite such coverage? Nikkimaria (talk) 23:09, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment I'm going from memory, but i think the only two cities for which we have kept members of the council routinely are NYC and Chicago, as exceptions due to the particularly important role of the council in the actual government of those two cities.  DGG ( talk ) 02:36, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete. Run-of-the-mill councillor, no notability proven. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 13:26, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. The references already in the article are a good start, and combined with two more that I found (from a national source, no less), there's more than enough here to meet WP:GNG and WP:POLITICIAN. Alzarian16 (talk) 18:59, 12 September 2011 (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.