Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mark Lubosch (2nd nomination)

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. No one appears to be asserting that the subject independently meets WP:N, and indeed it appears that the article does not. The basis for keeping the article would then be the community consensus around elected officials from global cities, which as of now does not apply to the subject. The argument for deletion has been endorsed by multiple editors and goes effectively unrefuted. A Train^talk 08:14, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Lubosch

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Notability: significant RS coverage cannot be found. The subject lost his position as city councillor in 2015. Otherwise, an unremarkable subject. Update (Aug 16, following discussions with Bearcat): The prior consensus was established with the understanding that Winnipeg was a global city (I've located the listing in the article on global cities, 2015 version). While acknowledging that consensus formerly accepted Winnipeg as one of the cities where a city councillor was accepted as notable under NPOL #2, I believe that it shouldn't anymore because Winnipeg is listed under "Category 6 (Sufficiency)". I believe this is insufficient to qualify it as a major international hub of business and political power, where a city councillor could be presumed to be notable:

Alpha++ cities are London and New York City, which are vastly more integrated with the global economy than all other cities.
Alpha+ cities complement London and New York City by filling advanced service niches for the global economy.
Alpha and Alpha- cities are cities that link major economic regions into the world economy.
Beta level cities are cities that link moderate economic regions into the world economy.
Gamma level cities are cities that link smaller economic regions into the world economy.
Sufficiency level cities are cities that have a sufficient degree of services so as not to be obviously dependent on world cities.

For comparison, other North American cities in the last category as Des Moines, Greensboro, Sacramento. K.e.coffman (talk) 22:30, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:42, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Manitoba-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:42, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Winnipeg has traditionally been one of the cities where serving on the city council is considered an adequate claim of notability to pass WP:NPOL, because it's in the global city category (admittedly the gamma, i.e. lowest, subclass of that club, but still in it.) And since the subject has not held office since 2006, significant coverage would not be expected to be locatable via Google News — rather, improving the sourcing would require digging into news databases like ProQuest. And neither does Wikipedia have any requirement that the news coverage be current or web-accessible — we can source stuff to print-only older n:ewspaper content. Keep, and I'll take a stab at reffing it up via ProQuest in the next few days. Bearcat (talk) 18:28, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Following some discussion with K.e.coffman to clarify our respective issues, I see that he's now revising his nomination rationales to accommodate my primary concerns — as noted, I'm not wedded to the idea that Winnipeg's city councillors need to be kept as notable, but simply objected to the fact that some editors seemed willing to simply ignore the fact that the prior consensus ever existed at all. If any prior consensus could be erased simply by refusing to acknowledge that it existed, and didn't require any actual discussion and debate about the reasons why it should possibly be changed, Wikipedia would instantly become a giant pile of anarchy. An argument formulated this way, however, I can agree with: the "sufficiency" class of cities should not be considered notable enough to hand its city councillors an NPOL pass anymore, and Winnipeg is not for any substantive reason a city where broad national or international reader interest transcends its relatively low class of "globalness" the way a national capital might. Accordingly, I support the nomination as now formulated: my issue was the way in which the argument was being conducted as if no consensus for these ever existed in the first place, not any strong belief that Winnipeg should retain that status permanently. Bearcat (talk) 21:35, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Winnipeg is not a significant enough city to grant automatic notability to members of its city council.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:45, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Prior consensus, the last time a batch of Winnipeg city councillors was put up for AFD, established that it is significant enough. While I acknowledge that consensus can change, it changes by means of the formal establishment of a new consensus, not by means of people simply pretending that the existing consensus isn't even there in the first place. You're absolutely free to make a case for why the prior consensus that Winnipeg is significant enough to NPOL its city councillors should be overturned — and hell, I might even agree with you if the argument was strong enough, because I'm not 100 per cent committed to the existing consensus either — but until a new consensus is formally established to overturn the old one, the old one still stands. Bearcat (talk) 02:01, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Consensus can change. Also, looking at the prior AfD, it appears that the argument was that they are presumed to be notable. But the actual notability still needs to be demonstrated via significant coverage in multiple RS. I just don't see those for the subject. None have been presented at this AfD either to meet GNG. K.e.coffman (talk) 17:38, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I know that consensus can change — I even said so in the very comment you're replying to. But consensus changes by means of a discussion that specifically addresses the issue of changing the consensus and specifically establishes a new one, not by means of one user arbitrarily decreeing that the prior consensus never existed in the first place. Bearcat (talk) 17:42, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Was there an RfC that established that consensus? Otherwise, it's more of an argument that "it was kept the last time (8 years ago), so it should be kept this time". I'm not sure that's how the AfD process works, unless I'm mistaken. K.e.coffman (talk) 17:50, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus doesn't have to be formulated specifically by means of an RFC. There hasn't been just one AFD on this individual person alone; several past AFD discussions on Winnipeg city councillors reached the same conclusion that Winnipeg was large and notable and "global" enough, simultaneously as other discussions were coming down as delete for cities like Regina and Saskatoon and Hamilton that are of otherwise similar size or within-their-own-region significance, specifically on the grounds that Winnipeg places much higher in the global city rankings than Regina or Saskatoon do. WP:OUTCOMES defined by the weight of multiple similar AFD decisions do count as the establishment of consensus. Again, I know that consensus can change — but it takes a new consensus to deprecate a prior consensus. Bearcat (talk) 18:02, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The argument in this AfD and the prior AfD is that they are presumed to be notable. But the actual notability still needs to be demonstrated via significant coverage in multiple RS. This is how any SNG works, as I understand it. None have been presented at this AfD to meet GNG. K.e.coffman (talk) 18:07, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A presumption of notability remains in place until such time as improved sourceability can be definitively shown not to exist at all. If an SNG is objectively passed, then one RS which verifies that passage is enough to get the article kept, and merely flagged for {{refimprove}}, and the presumption of notability remains in place until additional sourcing can be definitively shown as not even possible — GNG requires merely the existence of improved source coverage, not its preexisting inclusion in the article's as-currently-written form. Wikipedia is a volunteer project, and I had other things to do yesterday which prevented me from being able to look into this and Brenda Leipsic right away — that doesn't mean that I'm not doing it, but it takes time which I have to schedule around other things. Bearcat (talk) 18:10, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

74 hits on Lubosch in ProQuest's Canadian Newsstand Major Dailies, radiating outward all the way to Charlottetown, Montreal, Halifax, Sudbury and the National Post. That's more than enough. Bearcat (talk) 18:23, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - barring a clear change of consensus, a city councilor in a major world city ranks for notability. Bearian (talk) 23:46, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The more general consensus haas been for them notable only in a few exceptional citiies where they have qaa particularly large political role: NYC & Chicago, and I'm not sure of anywhere else. DGG ( talk ) 00:27, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, the consensus has never been that these are permissible only for New York City and Chicago and nowhere else; the consensus has always been that they're permissible for any city in the global city class. San Francisco, Los Angeles, Seattle, Vancouver, Toronto, Montreal, Calgary, Edmonton, Washington DC, Boston, London, Paris, Ottawa and San Diego, for starters, are just some other examples of cities where the city councillors do routinely have Wikipedia articles because city councillor in and of itself. If a new consensus can be established that Winnipeg should come off the list of cities whose councillors qualify, then that's one thing (and not even a thing I'd necessarily disagree with) — but past consensus was established that Winnipeg was on it, so you need to make a case for why Winnipeg should be removed from the established consensus, and can't get these deleted just by making false claims about what the existing consensus even is. Bearcat (talk) 17:41, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

DGG is wrong about what the existing consensus was and is. Bearcat (talk) 17:42, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:17, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment While this may not be the most appropriate place to suggest what a global city is, for purpose of determining whether a municipal councilmember should have the presumption of notability, my sense is that a "global city" links "major economic regions into the world economy." If this standard became the new consensus, it would be appropriate to redirect to Winnipeg City Council. Enos733 (talk) 19:21, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 20:26, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I would question the whole basis of this discussion, which seems to revolve around whether Winnipeg is a global city. WP:POLITICIAN doesn't say anything about global cities. The role of city councillors varies enormously between different parts of the world. In some countries they have a major influence over the government of their cities and the surrounding regions, but in others they are simply responsible for implementing national or regional government policies with a tiny bit of independent discretion on the side. In the former case they should be regarded as notable, but in the latter not, regardless of whether the city they serve in is classified as "global". 86.17.222.157 (talk) 20:43, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Precedents established at AFD do count as consensus regardless of whether they've been explicitly codified into policy statements or not. And the problem with the alternative standard you propose here is that it's not easily or objectively quantifiable which of those two camps most cities would fall under. Bearcat (talk) 16:29, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- two related AfDs on Winnipeg City Council members, such as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brenda Leipsic (2nd nomination), closed as delete. Pls also see group AfD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Winnipeg city councillors. K.e.coffman (talk) 08:12, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Bearcat has struck their Keep vote. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:12, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, not notable. Delete. Global city or not. Drmies (talk) 01:52, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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.