| Revision as of 01:11, 7 November 2005 editThivierr (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers26,779 editsNo edit summary← Previous edit | Revision as of 01:12, 7 November 2005 edit undo64.12.116.9 (talk) Mexican G was hereNext edit → | ||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| ===]=== | |||
| The ] 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.''' ] 09:10, 5 November 2005 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Keep''', somewhat notable politician. ] 09:16, 5 November 2005 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Keep''' per Cleduc. —] 09:20, 5 November 2005 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Keep''' - combination of what he's done, puts him over the fence barely. --] 10:14, 5 November 2005 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Keep''' per Cleduc. - ] 13:42, 5 November 2005 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Delete'''Not 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. ] 5 November 2005 (''Note: User's second contribution ever under this username.'') | |||
| : Having an article in Misplaced Pages is hardly a formidable political tool. ] 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 ] 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? --] ] - ] 20:23, 5 November 2005 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Keep'''. Notable civic politician. --] 23:39, 5 November 2005 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Delete''' as non-notable. He is only a city councillor. -- ] 00:20, 6 November 2005 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Delete''' city council men are not notable --]'' | ] 02:02, 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) | |||
| **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) | |||