Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brenda Leipsic

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. Consensus is that sourcing exists to add to the article (as opposed to being unverifiable). Also that this position establishes notability StarM 04:02, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Brenda Leipsic

Unsourced BLP of a person of marginal notability, either sources should be added or it should be deleted. RMHED (talk) 22:39, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep city councilor of Winnipeg, a large enough city that all of its councillors are notable. I note the nom does not assert these are unsourcable, DGG (talk) 23:28, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I added some references. As a former deputy mayor, she is particularly notable. -- Eastmain (talk) 23:47, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable local figure. There are plenty of sources that attest to her notability. CJCurrie (talk) 03:44, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the world is full of thousands of local councillors, and they are not notable for being one. I could produce references for my local councillors, with lots of local press attention and so on - but are they notable outside their area. No. Members of the Winipeg City Council are not notable. And the fact she was Deputy Mayor is also not notable. If this page is kept, I could easily create many pages on my local councillors, with valid references. Wikipedia cannot, and should not, have articles for councillors.--UpDown (talk) 08:38, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keeep I imagine that if councillors are not notable that it could easily extend to provincial legislatures and the majority of MPs. The fact of the matter is that elected officials are notable and I have no idea why it is an issue. Are we talking about limited bandwidth? jdobbin (talk) 16:03, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You have totally missed the point. You seemed to be suggesting all elected politicians are in the same category of notablity. There are not. MPs are members of national parliaments and far different from a councillor a small town, say, or a county. It is an "issue" because local councillors are not notable outside their area, i.e. borough or city. They have no effect on national laws or major decisions.--UpDown (talk) 08:03, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

New York City lists its councillors. They should be removed as well? jdobbin (talk) 15:27, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per DGG's rationale. PHARMBOY ^{(moo) (plop)} 17:39, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per all of above. Wikipedia:BIO#Politicians says, "Generally speaking, mayors are likely to meet this criterion, as are members of the main citywide government or council of a major metropolitan city." Winnepeg is Manitoba's largest city and provincial capital. It's one of Canada's ten largest cities and has a population of greater than 500,000. The city council members of such a city surely qualify. Cheers, Dloh cierekim 23:49, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 21:25, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:BIO. The sourcing is more than adequate and I agree with BIO in that that the position of councilman in a major city confers notability. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 15:33, 2 November 2008 (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.