- 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 keep. Black Kite (talk) 18:02, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
Cam Gordon
- Cam Gordon ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non-notable city councillor. Zero sources (other than promotional links). Contested PROD. AusLondonder ( talk) 20:21, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. AusLondonder ( talk) 20:25, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. AusLondonder ( talk) 20:26, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
- Delete. Completely non-notable. 68.233.214.74 ( talk) 20:43, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
- Keep. Meets WP:GNG and WP:NPOL#2: "Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage." Gordon has been a member of the Minneapolis City Council since 2005 and has received significant coverage from multiple reliable sources. He's a founder of the Green Party of Minnesota and was one of the earlier Greens to get on the City Council in a major city. As I noted when I requested undeletion, I'm more than willing to source the article. I'm not done yet and haven't gotten to the book references, but I've added about 20 references so far that should demonstrate notability. gobonobo + c 22:45, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
-
Gobonobo (
talk ·
contribs) No he doesn't meet
WP:GNG which states an individual is notable if they have "received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Those sources you have added are not significant coverage. They are article about other issues, such as
this one, which is a press release from the Humane Society of the United States. It is titled "Minneapolis City Council Votes to Ban Elephant Bullhooks" and mentions Gordon in passing. It is not about Gordon. It's about Minneapolis City Council voting to ban Elephant Bullhooks. Criteria two of
WP:NPOL states an individual is only notable "if they meet the primary notability criterion of 'significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject of the article'". Gordon does not.
AusLondonder (
talk) 02:58, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
- @
AusLondonder: I removed the passage about the elephant bullhook ban until we have a better source. However, I invite you to make a determination based on the many other sources that do have significant coverage about Gordon. Here are a few:
- Arola, Brian (April 24, 2013). "Unopposed in Minneapolis city council race, Cam Gordon has 'time to plan'". Twin Cities Daily Planet.
- Brandt, Steve (September 8, 2016). "Minneapolis council member wants aging Glendale homes rehabbed, not replaced". Star Tribune.
- Golden, Erin (May 29, 2016). "Minneapolis may open door to more communal living". Star Tribune.
- McCorquodale, David (October 13, 2009). "Why they keep on winning". Green Pages.
- Many of the sources address Gordon and his actions as a councilmember directly and in detail, including legislation that he proposed or authored. His employment equity resolution, for instance, was the first of its kind in the US. I think it is also important to consider that he co-founded a state-level party and is considered the most prominent elected Green Party official in the US. gobonobo + c 01:05, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
- @
AusLondonder: I removed the passage about the elephant bullhook ban until we have a better source. However, I invite you to make a determination based on the many other sources that do have significant coverage about Gordon. Here are a few:
-
Gobonobo (
talk ·
contribs) No he doesn't meet
WP:GNG which states an individual is notable if they have "received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Those sources you have added are not significant coverage. They are article about other issues, such as
this one, which is a press release from the Humane Society of the United States. It is titled "Minneapolis City Council Votes to Ban Elephant Bullhooks" and mentions Gordon in passing. It is not about Gordon. It's about Minneapolis City Council voting to ban Elephant Bullhooks. Criteria two of
WP:NPOL states an individual is only notable "if they meet the primary notability criterion of 'significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject of the article'". Gordon does not.
AusLondonder (
talk) 02:58, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
- Delete does not meet the inclusion criteria for politicians. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 04:04, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
- Keep. Minneapolis is a large and internationally prominent enough city to make its city councillors eligible for inclusion under WP:NPOL, and there has been considerable effort to improve the article and its referencing since the nomination was initiated — I'll grant that not all of the references are strong ones (there is still some primary sourcing and some glancing namechecks of his existence in coverage of other things), but there are enough sources in which he's substantively the subject present to clear the bar. Bearcat ( talk) 22:54, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
-
Bearcat I completely disagree. Minneapolis is a small city with less than 400,000 inhabitants. There are thousands of cities larger worldwide. In China alone, there are literally hundreds of cities larger than Minneapolis with 105 above the million mark. In India nearly 120 cities, with thousands of councillors between them are larger than Minneapolis. The section at
WP:NPOL dealing with local councillors states "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" - it makes no mention of automatic inclusion for any city, let alone a city of less than half a million. I would have thought that only the most internationally notable cities like London, Paris, New York, Mumbai, etc would have any claim to automatic inclusion for their councillors. If we said every local councillor (not even just mayors/council leaders) ever elected in history in a city like Minneapolis was automatically notable we would be opening the door to quite possibly hundreds of thousands of new articles.
AusLondonder (
talk) 01:13, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
- The difference between "city that gets its councillors over
WP:NPOL #3" and "city that does not get its councillors over NPOL #3" has never been a question of any specific population size cutoff, but of whether or not reliable external sources characterize the city as an alpha, beta or gamma class
global city. If they do, then the city councillors are in regardless of whether it has a population of 10 million or just 400,000 — and if they don't, then the city councillors are out, still regardless of population, unless they can be shown as significantly more notable than the norm for city councillors of non-global cities. Go back to
Minneapolis and read the second paragraph, particularly the sentence which begins "As an integral link to the global economy, Minneapolis is categorized as a..."
Bearcat (
talk) 01:22, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
- That sentence about Minneapolis being an "integral link" in the global economy sounds like parochial puffery. I am quite certain that in the case of the city meeting an untimely demise the global economy would continue uninterrupted. The city is classified as Beta-. Does that mean that you are suggesting every councillor ever elected to a city council in an alpha to gamma city is automatically notable?
AusLondonder (
talk) 02:00, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
- The definition of a global city is not "the entire world would revert to the Dark Ages if this one city were ever bombed". And yes, the consensus has always been that all alpha, beta or gamma cities qualified (consensus has only just recently deprecated even the "sufficiency" class of sorta-global cities such as Winnipeg, in fact, because they used to get their city councillors in too.) Bearcat ( talk) 02:20, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
- That sentence about Minneapolis being an "integral link" in the global economy sounds like parochial puffery. I am quite certain that in the case of the city meeting an untimely demise the global economy would continue uninterrupted. The city is classified as Beta-. Does that mean that you are suggesting every councillor ever elected to a city council in an alpha to gamma city is automatically notable?
AusLondonder (
talk) 02:00, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
- The difference between "city that gets its councillors over
WP:NPOL #3" and "city that does not get its councillors over NPOL #3" has never been a question of any specific population size cutoff, but of whether or not reliable external sources characterize the city as an alpha, beta or gamma class
global city. If they do, then the city councillors are in regardless of whether it has a population of 10 million or just 400,000 — and if they don't, then the city councillors are out, still regardless of population, unless they can be shown as significantly more notable than the norm for city councillors of non-global cities. Go back to
Minneapolis and read the second paragraph, particularly the sentence which begins "As an integral link to the global economy, Minneapolis is categorized as a..."
Bearcat (
talk) 01:22, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
-
Bearcat I completely disagree. Minneapolis is a small city with less than 400,000 inhabitants. There are thousands of cities larger worldwide. In China alone, there are literally hundreds of cities larger than Minneapolis with 105 above the million mark. In India nearly 120 cities, with thousands of councillors between them are larger than Minneapolis. The section at
WP:NPOL dealing with local councillors states "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" - it makes no mention of automatic inclusion for any city, let alone a city of less than half a million. I would have thought that only the most internationally notable cities like London, Paris, New York, Mumbai, etc would have any claim to automatic inclusion for their councillors. If we said every local councillor (not even just mayors/council leaders) ever elected in history in a city like Minneapolis was automatically notable we would be opening the door to quite possibly hundreds of thousands of new articles.
AusLondonder (
talk) 01:13, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
- Keep per gobonobo. I disagree with Bearcat that the consensus on automatic notability of city council members of "global cities" is that strong - especially beyond the largest well-renowned cities. In this case, the sourcing is strong, and he has been name dropped in several national newsmagazines. The overall quantity of coverage also is above the level of what is expected of a normal city official. -- Enos733 ( talk) 05:46, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
- Keep per Gobonobo. The article is well sourced and Gordon holds a prominent position in city government.-- TM 15:52, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
- Keep sufficient sourcing exists to establish notability. Lepricavark ( talk) 02:28, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
- Strong Keep This is a well researched, thoroughly sourced entry. Topic is obviously notable. It should not be penalized for being overly detailed. If some of the cites are self-published sources then they should be removed. But I am astonished that this entry would even be considered for deletion. It is an asset to wikipedia and valuable to Gordon's constituents and the people of Winnipeg. I think that editors who cite policy should give more detailed reasons why they think a policy applies rather than merely mentioning it. Bangabandhu ( talk) 23:12, 11 February 2017 (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.
- 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 keep. Black Kite (talk) 18:02, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
Cam Gordon
- Cam Gordon ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non-notable city councillor. Zero sources (other than promotional links). Contested PROD. AusLondonder ( talk) 20:21, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. AusLondonder ( talk) 20:25, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. AusLondonder ( talk) 20:26, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
- Delete. Completely non-notable. 68.233.214.74 ( talk) 20:43, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
- Keep. Meets WP:GNG and WP:NPOL#2: "Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage." Gordon has been a member of the Minneapolis City Council since 2005 and has received significant coverage from multiple reliable sources. He's a founder of the Green Party of Minnesota and was one of the earlier Greens to get on the City Council in a major city. As I noted when I requested undeletion, I'm more than willing to source the article. I'm not done yet and haven't gotten to the book references, but I've added about 20 references so far that should demonstrate notability. gobonobo + c 22:45, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
-
Gobonobo (
talk ·
contribs) No he doesn't meet
WP:GNG which states an individual is notable if they have "received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Those sources you have added are not significant coverage. They are article about other issues, such as
this one, which is a press release from the Humane Society of the United States. It is titled "Minneapolis City Council Votes to Ban Elephant Bullhooks" and mentions Gordon in passing. It is not about Gordon. It's about Minneapolis City Council voting to ban Elephant Bullhooks. Criteria two of
WP:NPOL states an individual is only notable "if they meet the primary notability criterion of 'significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject of the article'". Gordon does not.
AusLondonder (
talk) 02:58, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
- @
AusLondonder: I removed the passage about the elephant bullhook ban until we have a better source. However, I invite you to make a determination based on the many other sources that do have significant coverage about Gordon. Here are a few:
- Arola, Brian (April 24, 2013). "Unopposed in Minneapolis city council race, Cam Gordon has 'time to plan'". Twin Cities Daily Planet.
- Brandt, Steve (September 8, 2016). "Minneapolis council member wants aging Glendale homes rehabbed, not replaced". Star Tribune.
- Golden, Erin (May 29, 2016). "Minneapolis may open door to more communal living". Star Tribune.
- McCorquodale, David (October 13, 2009). "Why they keep on winning". Green Pages.
- Many of the sources address Gordon and his actions as a councilmember directly and in detail, including legislation that he proposed or authored. His employment equity resolution, for instance, was the first of its kind in the US. I think it is also important to consider that he co-founded a state-level party and is considered the most prominent elected Green Party official in the US. gobonobo + c 01:05, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
- @
AusLondonder: I removed the passage about the elephant bullhook ban until we have a better source. However, I invite you to make a determination based on the many other sources that do have significant coverage about Gordon. Here are a few:
-
Gobonobo (
talk ·
contribs) No he doesn't meet
WP:GNG which states an individual is notable if they have "received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Those sources you have added are not significant coverage. They are article about other issues, such as
this one, which is a press release from the Humane Society of the United States. It is titled "Minneapolis City Council Votes to Ban Elephant Bullhooks" and mentions Gordon in passing. It is not about Gordon. It's about Minneapolis City Council voting to ban Elephant Bullhooks. Criteria two of
WP:NPOL states an individual is only notable "if they meet the primary notability criterion of 'significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject of the article'". Gordon does not.
AusLondonder (
talk) 02:58, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
- Delete does not meet the inclusion criteria for politicians. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 04:04, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
- Keep. Minneapolis is a large and internationally prominent enough city to make its city councillors eligible for inclusion under WP:NPOL, and there has been considerable effort to improve the article and its referencing since the nomination was initiated — I'll grant that not all of the references are strong ones (there is still some primary sourcing and some glancing namechecks of his existence in coverage of other things), but there are enough sources in which he's substantively the subject present to clear the bar. Bearcat ( talk) 22:54, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
-
Bearcat I completely disagree. Minneapolis is a small city with less than 400,000 inhabitants. There are thousands of cities larger worldwide. In China alone, there are literally hundreds of cities larger than Minneapolis with 105 above the million mark. In India nearly 120 cities, with thousands of councillors between them are larger than Minneapolis. The section at
WP:NPOL dealing with local councillors states "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" - it makes no mention of automatic inclusion for any city, let alone a city of less than half a million. I would have thought that only the most internationally notable cities like London, Paris, New York, Mumbai, etc would have any claim to automatic inclusion for their councillors. If we said every local councillor (not even just mayors/council leaders) ever elected in history in a city like Minneapolis was automatically notable we would be opening the door to quite possibly hundreds of thousands of new articles.
AusLondonder (
talk) 01:13, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
- The difference between "city that gets its councillors over
WP:NPOL #3" and "city that does not get its councillors over NPOL #3" has never been a question of any specific population size cutoff, but of whether or not reliable external sources characterize the city as an alpha, beta or gamma class
global city. If they do, then the city councillors are in regardless of whether it has a population of 10 million or just 400,000 — and if they don't, then the city councillors are out, still regardless of population, unless they can be shown as significantly more notable than the norm for city councillors of non-global cities. Go back to
Minneapolis and read the second paragraph, particularly the sentence which begins "As an integral link to the global economy, Minneapolis is categorized as a..."
Bearcat (
talk) 01:22, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
- That sentence about Minneapolis being an "integral link" in the global economy sounds like parochial puffery. I am quite certain that in the case of the city meeting an untimely demise the global economy would continue uninterrupted. The city is classified as Beta-. Does that mean that you are suggesting every councillor ever elected to a city council in an alpha to gamma city is automatically notable?
AusLondonder (
talk) 02:00, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
- The definition of a global city is not "the entire world would revert to the Dark Ages if this one city were ever bombed". And yes, the consensus has always been that all alpha, beta or gamma cities qualified (consensus has only just recently deprecated even the "sufficiency" class of sorta-global cities such as Winnipeg, in fact, because they used to get their city councillors in too.) Bearcat ( talk) 02:20, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
- That sentence about Minneapolis being an "integral link" in the global economy sounds like parochial puffery. I am quite certain that in the case of the city meeting an untimely demise the global economy would continue uninterrupted. The city is classified as Beta-. Does that mean that you are suggesting every councillor ever elected to a city council in an alpha to gamma city is automatically notable?
AusLondonder (
talk) 02:00, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
- The difference between "city that gets its councillors over
WP:NPOL #3" and "city that does not get its councillors over NPOL #3" has never been a question of any specific population size cutoff, but of whether or not reliable external sources characterize the city as an alpha, beta or gamma class
global city. If they do, then the city councillors are in regardless of whether it has a population of 10 million or just 400,000 — and if they don't, then the city councillors are out, still regardless of population, unless they can be shown as significantly more notable than the norm for city councillors of non-global cities. Go back to
Minneapolis and read the second paragraph, particularly the sentence which begins "As an integral link to the global economy, Minneapolis is categorized as a..."
Bearcat (
talk) 01:22, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
-
Bearcat I completely disagree. Minneapolis is a small city with less than 400,000 inhabitants. There are thousands of cities larger worldwide. In China alone, there are literally hundreds of cities larger than Minneapolis with 105 above the million mark. In India nearly 120 cities, with thousands of councillors between them are larger than Minneapolis. The section at
WP:NPOL dealing with local councillors states "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" - it makes no mention of automatic inclusion for any city, let alone a city of less than half a million. I would have thought that only the most internationally notable cities like London, Paris, New York, Mumbai, etc would have any claim to automatic inclusion for their councillors. If we said every local councillor (not even just mayors/council leaders) ever elected in history in a city like Minneapolis was automatically notable we would be opening the door to quite possibly hundreds of thousands of new articles.
AusLondonder (
talk) 01:13, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
- Keep per gobonobo. I disagree with Bearcat that the consensus on automatic notability of city council members of "global cities" is that strong - especially beyond the largest well-renowned cities. In this case, the sourcing is strong, and he has been name dropped in several national newsmagazines. The overall quantity of coverage also is above the level of what is expected of a normal city official. -- Enos733 ( talk) 05:46, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
- Keep per Gobonobo. The article is well sourced and Gordon holds a prominent position in city government.-- TM 15:52, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
- Keep sufficient sourcing exists to establish notability. Lepricavark ( talk) 02:28, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
- Strong Keep This is a well researched, thoroughly sourced entry. Topic is obviously notable. It should not be penalized for being overly detailed. If some of the cites are self-published sources then they should be removed. But I am astonished that this entry would even be considered for deletion. It is an asset to wikipedia and valuable to Gordon's constituents and the people of Winnipeg. I think that editors who cite policy should give more detailed reasons why they think a policy applies rather than merely mentioning it. Bangabandhu ( talk) 23:12, 11 February 2017 (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.