- 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. Randykitty ( talk) 11:45, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
Brian McHattie
 | If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is
not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has
policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and
consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts:{{subst:
spa|username}}; suspected
canvassed users: {{subst:
canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for
sockpuppetry: {{subst:
csm|username}} or {{subst:
csp|username}}. |
- Brian McHattie ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
WP:BLP of a city councillor in a city not large enough to confer notability on its city councillors under WP:POLITICIAN. While the article is not as badly sourced as some of the other city councillors I've nominated for deletion today, the volume of sourcing present is not enough to demonstrate that he's more notable than most other city councillors. His current candidacy for mayor doesn't help, either, as candidates for municipal office do not qualify for articles on Wikipedia just for being candidates — no prejudice against recreation in October if he wins the mayoralty, but he's not entitled to an article just for being a mayoral candidate or a city councillor. Delete. Bearcat ( talk) 20:14, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Bearcat ( talk) 20:14, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 00:41, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 00:41, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 00:41, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 00:41, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
Keep. User:Bearcat/Whatever: Where a municipal politician does not pass one of the size-based inclusion criteria above, their chances of being considered notable enough for inclusion may be improved by the use of national or regional, rather than exclusively local, sources. For instance, a small-town mayor or a non-metropolitan city councillor who can be shown to have garnered coverage in The New York Times or The Globe and Mail is more likely to be considered notable than one who can be sourced only to the local community weekly.
Brian McHattie has garnered coverage in regional and national publications on a number of occasions including the Globe and Mail [1], Toronto Star [2], [3], and Metro News [4]. The article has been updated to include more non-local sources. Keep. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hmcnaught ( talk • contribs)
- — Hmcnaught ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- You're citing an as-yet-undistributed draft, which I have yet to even submit for the necessary consensus review to even have it adopted as an essay (let alone an actual, binding inclusion guideline), as prima facie proof that he passes the actual notability guideline in its actual form? Er, no. And even if that unfinished draft were in any way binding on Wikipedia, there's still a big difference between "more likely to be considered notable" and "will definitely be considered notable" — "chances may be improved" is not the same thing as "guaranteed to be kept". (And incidentally, considering the deeply-intertwined interrelationship of Hamilton with the GTA, the Globe and the Star and Metro are part of Hamilton's local media landscape. And his name being mentioned in coverage of something else is not the same thing as coverage of him, either — those articles are not substantively about him, but merely glance off his name once or twice in the process of being coverage of something else.)
- And in addition, it bears noting that I strongly suspect a conflict of interest here — brand-new Wikipedia contributors who suddenly appear in an AFD discussion about a politician, as their first-ever contributions to Wikipedia, are almost never truly disinterested and neutral parties. Bearcat ( talk) 22:41, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
Hamilton and GTA are separate markets with their own media sources in both print and television. The Toronto Star is properly described as a regional paper quite separate from the local market of the Hamilton Spectator. The Globe and Mail is widely known as one of two national Canadian newspapers and cannot accurately be described as a paper local to Hamilton any more than it can be considered local to Montreal or Vancouver. Coverage in these sources, combined with significant coverage in numerous local reliable and mainstream media sources spanning radio, television, print, and web meets the notability criteria described in Wikipedia:Notability (people): Just being an elected local official, or an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability, although such people can still be notable if they meet the primary notability criterion of "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject of the article". Keep. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jthorton2014 ( talk • contribs) 01:18, 26 June 2014 (UTC) — Jthorton2014 ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- The Toronto Star most certainly does include Hamilton in the coverage area of its local sections. The Globe and Mail prints dedicated "Toronto" sections which are not distributed to the rest of the country, and it most certainly does include coverage of Hamilton in that local section. He is not the subject of any of the articles that have been added to the article today as extra "sourcing"; he is merely named, in passing, in a handful of articles whose primary subjects are other things. And the fact that this comment was your first-ever contribution to Wikipedia means that you're raising the same conflict of interest suspicions as Hmcnaught above. Bearcat ( talk) 01:44, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
- Delete A local politician with no notice outside of his local areas. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 03:02, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
- Delete. Of local interest only. Xxanthippe ( talk) 23:07, 27 June 2014 (UTC).
- Delete. Generally only councillors in very large cities are accorded notability. Hamilton does not count as such. -- Necrothesp ( talk) 08:47, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
- Weak Delete, there are a bunch of sources provided, but they're not substantially about McHattie himself, they just report his position on various issues or feature a quote. For a public official such as this, I feel that if notability is not slam-dunk obvious, then it probably doesn't exist. Lankiveil ( speak to me) 07:20, 5 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.