| Revision as of 00:34, 7 November 2005 editCalton (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users78,494 edits →[]← Previous edit | Revision as of 01:11, 7 November 2005 edit undoThivierr (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers26,779 editsNo edit summaryNext edit → | ||
| Line 14: | Line 14: | ||
| *'''Keep''' all city council members, aldermen and other elected officials are inherently notable.--] 06:35, 6 November 2005 (UTC) | *'''Keep''' all city council members, aldermen and other elected officials are inherently notable.--] 06:35, 6 November 2005 (UTC) | ||
| *'''Delete'''. All city council members, aldermen and other local elected officials are not inherently notable, even within their own jurisdictions. --] | ] 00:34, 7 November 2005 (UTC) | *'''Delete'''. All city council members, aldermen and other local elected officials are not inherently notable, even within their own jurisdictions. --] | ] 00:34, 7 November 2005 (UTC) | ||
| **I think precident for most city councillors (e.g. consensus to delete) precident agrees with you. But I think there is more basis for keeping than just an "auto-keep" for councillors. Keeping this person is no precident for keeping all city councillors (as Bearcat properly in the ], but was drowned out due to noise) . --] 01:11, 7 November 2005 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 01:11, 7 November 2005
Alan Shefman
The original debate was irreparably tainted by partisan political attacks. I've closed it and am resubmitting on procedural grounds for a clean, untainted discussion. My own preference in the original debate was to keep, but as this is a procedural nomination this time, I will not cast a vote. However, in light of what happened in the first discussion, I will lay down the following: unsigned anonymous votes are explicitly forbidden this time out. Bearcat 09:10, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
- Keep, somewhat notable politician. Cleduc 09:16, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
- Keep per Cleduc. —Cleared as filed. 09:20, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
- Keep - combination of what he's done, puts him over the fence barely. --rob 10:14, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
- Keep per Cleduc. - Sensor 13:42, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
- DeleteNot notable, posted by Alan Shefman’s son (pm_shef) with an attempt to use as a political tool, use to pursue his political agenda and to use as advertising for his so called company. Does not meet the criteria to be an article, most high-power or high-profile position he held was/is as city councillor in a small city which I understand does not meet the criteria, in addition he was only a city councilor for a very short period of time (less than a year). Position as a “director” within government is even a lower-power or lower-profile than the city councilors position as at any given time there are over 200 people with a directors title. Appears to have false information posted. No other councillor posted from such a small city. User:eyeonvaughan 5 November 2005 (Note: User's second contribution ever under this username.)
- Having an article in Misplaced Pages is hardly a formidable political tool. Cleduc 00:55, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
- Weak keep This guy is not very notable, but the article is not PoVish and most or all of its info is verifiable http://www.city.vaughan.on.ca/vaughan/council/ward5_profile.cfm FRS 18:22, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
- Weak keep Vaughan is becoming bigger and bigger, so maybe it has reached the point where its councillors are notable? --NDP logo Earl Andrew - talk 20:23, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
- Keep. Notable civic politician. --YUL89YYZ 23:39, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
- Delete as non-notable. He is only a city councillor. -- Kjkolb 00:20, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
- Delete city council men are not notable --JAranda | watz sup 02:02, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
- Keep all city council members, aldermen and other elected officials are inherently notable.--Nicodemus75 06:35, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. All city council members, aldermen and other local elected officials are not inherently notable, even within their own jurisdictions. --Calton | Talk 00:34, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
- I think precident for most city councillors (e.g. consensus to delete) precident agrees with you. But I think there is more basis for keeping than just an "auto-keep" for councillors. Keeping this person is no precident for keeping all city councillors (as Bearcat properly said in the last AFD, but was drowned out due to noise) . --rob 01:11, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
