Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Trevor Loke


 * 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. Deor (talk) 11:49, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Trevor Loke

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Politician whose only substantive claim of notability is serving on a municipal parks board — which is not a claim that satisfies WP:POLITICIAN. Although Vancouver is large and internationally famous enough to confer notability on its city councillors, the criterion for city councillors is deliberately restricted to a narrow range of cities as it is — and there's never been any consensus to extend notability to even lower bodies than that (school boards, parks boards, etc.) Furthermore, this article is written as really a thinly-veiled résumé more than anything else — and he hasn't properly established any notability for his prior career with Weeve, either, as that content is sourced entirely to primary sources. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 00:20, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:21, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:21, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:21, 8 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep. Found quite a few things. First, he is 25 - which is exceptionally young to already hold such an office. 1 He was noted here for that fact. Found some other coverage of him; 2. He was a candidate for the Greens Party in 2009 MLA for Surrey-Newton per 3. I found some coverage of him in his Weeve roll here and here. He is also involved in an notable lawsuit here 6, 7, 8, 9 against Trinity Western University, where it notes he is openly gay and the face of the lawsuit. Actual lawsuit details are here. I don't know the political situation in Canada, but in my own country being openly gay and holding political office adds to notability. In addition he is noted as by Maclean's magazine as someone of note to look out for in their "Future Leaders of Canada" spread. see here. I will work to put this all into the article if I can find time, but anyone else is encouraged to do so first in the meantime. JTdale   Talk 18:01, 8 July 2014 (UTC) Additional note Just found an article by the Globe and Mail that says he is Vancouver's youngest ever official; read here. Vancouver city website supports this here. It also notes he is a receipient of the Chief Scout's Award.  JTdale   Talk 18:06, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Being a candidate for an office that the person didn't win doesn't make a person notable — and if the role that a person has held is not sufficiently notable to qualify them for a Wikipedia article by itself, then neither being the youngest person to hold it nor being LGBT boosts their notability either. (If he'd been the first LGBT person ever to hold any elected office in Vancouver, then there might be some added notability on that basis — but the third, fourth, fifth or twentieth LGBT person to hold a political office doesn't get any special notability bump, beyond other holders of that same office, just for being gay.) So he's four city councillors, Svend Robinson, Libby Davies, numerous MLAs and even several other parks board commissioners too late to be considered notable on that basis. Bearcat (talk) 20:53, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Which is why I asked. I'm Australian, not Canadian, so I don't know the attitudes there. That said you did ignore the youngest official ever bit, as well as being involved in a moderately notable lawsuit concerning the LGBT community, being noted by two major publications as a "rising star" of politics and co-founder of a moderately successful internet startup. Also, just being a candidate alone is not notable no but it does add to the general notability when supported by several other things. He has also pushed several influential policy changes, such as gender-neutral bathrooms and free wi-fi in parks and beaches. JTdale   Talk 03:44, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
 * It's not about differing attitudes between Canada and Australia, but about inclusion rules on Wikipedia — a politician doesn't automatically gain added notability for our purposes just because he happens to be gay. If he doesn't pass WP:POLITICIAN by virtue of an office that he's held — e.g. if he's just a candidate for political office and not an actual officeholder, or if he serves on a body whose members would not ordinarily be considered notable otherwise (such as a municipal committee or a non-metropolitan city council) — then merely being gay doesn't make him more notable than he would be otherwise. A person who could claim to be the first LGBT person ever elected to a particular body might get over the bar for that, in the same way as a "first woman" or "first person of colour" might, if that historic distinction garnered him substantive media coverage — but a person who was the second, third, fourth or fifteenth LGBT person elected to that body isn't any more inherently notable than his straight colleagues are. And that's a Wikipedia thing, not a Canada vs. Australia thing. Bearcat (talk) 23:58, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
 * He does however gain notability for being gay if in his country that is notable and therefore led to further media coverage. JTdale   Talk 07:05, 13 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 03:34, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

 Tentatively keep deleteFailing NPOL is not a valid reason for deletion, while failing BASIC is. Those who vote delete should argue the quality of the new sources provided. I will tentatively vote keep until someone comes to explain the problem of these sources. --114.81.255.37 (talk) 12:51, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete - Does not meet WP:NPOL criteria.--Rpclod (talk) 18:06, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Local media have an obligation to cover local politics, so a local politician getting covered in local media doesn't get him past WP:BASIC if the office itself doesn't pass WP:POLITICIAN. A local politician who got a lot of coverage in non-local media certainly would get over the bar on that basis, because that would constitute evidence that he'd established notability outside of his own city — but if all of the sources you can provide just constitute local coverage, and thus prove only that the local media are doing their jobs, then NPOL's exclusion of municipal committee members still applies. (Even mayors, who are inherently more notable than parks board members, still have to be the mayor of a city large enough that they have at least a prospect of getting their name into media outside their own city alone before they qualify for articles on Wikipedia.) And as written, most of this article's substantive content is just a bulleted list of boards and committees that he's been on, with no substantive detail about what he did on any of those boards or committees — which makes this a résumé, not a properly encyclopedic article about him. Bearcat (talk) 19:24, 22 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete This guy is an insignificant local politician who gets local coverage, he is not notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:45, 24 July 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.