Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mario F. Ferri

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. The rough consensus in this discussion is that the subject does not currently meet the general notability guideline or WP:POLITICIAN. I or any another admin will be happy to restore the article should the subject win the election or otherwise become notable. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 17:59, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mario F. Ferri[edit]

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

This article exists principally because of Mr. Ferri's status as an unelected candidate in the current Canadian federal election — it does, however, contain a bit of "sourced to local media" background on his term as a city councillor in Vaughan, Ontario prior to his current run (although much more of the article is sourced to primary sources rather than media.) That said, Vaughan is not a large enough city for its city councillors to earn a presumption of "inherent notability" just for being city councillors; per established prior consensus, Vaughan's city councillors (including Ferri) all existed only as redirects to Vaughan City Council, not as standalone articles. Delete this title (nobody's ever going to search for it with the middle initial) and convert the uninitialed redirect at Mario Ferri back to a Vaughan City Council redirect (which it was until it was changed to point here instead.) If he wins the election, then he can have a standalone article. Bearcat (talk) 17:18, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bearcat, your comment that "This article exists principally because of Mr. Ferri's status as an unelected candidate in the current Canadian federal election" seems to be based on your own an assertions rather than facts. If you have any facts upon which you base this opinion, please provide them. After reading the article, I have a few comments. Firstly, vaughan councillors - such as Michael DiBiase, Linda Jackson, Maurizio Bevilacqua, all have wikipedia pages. Further, councillors Vito Spatafora, Brenda Hogg, Dave Barrow of Richmond Hill, a city to the east of Vaughan, which has a smaller profile and a lower population and H. James Jones, and Frank Scarpitti of Markham which is of a similar size as Vaughan, all have Wikipedia Pages. So it seems as though the assertion that Vaughan is not a big enough city for its city councillors to earn a presumption of "inherent notability" just for being city councillors may be incorrect. I have also looked up information on Vaughan and it has a population of 280,000 people making it one of the largest Cities in Canada. Besides this, the subject of the article seems to be the recipient of a number of awards and may be notable on that accord as well under wikipedia's notability guidelines. I would suggest leaving the page up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.248.54.125 (talk) 21:46, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus has been that city councillors of cities this size are not inherently notable. This was recently reaffirmed with a city councillor of Regina, which is far more regional importance than Vaughan. Additionally have a look at WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS for why the fact that other similar articles may exist isn't relevant in this discussion. Ravendrop 23:07, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You're wrong about several of these: Jackson, Bevilacqua, Barrow, DiBiase and Scarpitti are or were mayors, not regular city councillors, and as such have a different standard of notability ("regional prominence") than city councillors do ("major metropolitan city"); Bevilacqua, in fact, was previously a federal MP, as was Jones, so they get to have articles on those grounds regardless of the notability or non-notability of their current municipal offices. Hogg does not have an article; she just has a redirect to Richmond Hill Town Council. The only one, in fact, that you're correct about is Vito Spatafora — and even that article only exists because somebody arbitrarily reverted it after I redirected him to the city council, so we won't have an independent article about him for very much longer, either

Hopefully you read the article and are aware that the subject was a 'Regional' Councillor, and as such enjoys 'regional prominence' - probably more than many mayors. Your comment that just because someone is a mayor makes them more notable than a regional councillor is just plain silly. Their powers are the same, they are voted in by the entire city, etc. etc. etc. According to your logic, the Mayor of a small rural township would be more notable then a regional councillor of one of canada's largest and fastest growing city's. There is a logical leap there. And please respect people leaving comments on here - your tone in that response is uncalled for in my opinion. Perhaps whom ever wrote that was referring to 'Council Members' when they wrote councillors - rather then specifying which one is a mayor and which one is not. Polyscigrad (talk) 08:49, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's the city that has to have regional prominence, not the person. That is, the mayor of Ottawa or Sudbury or Barrie or Vaughan can have an article; the mayor of Adjala-Tosorotontio or Orangeville or Georgina not necessarily. It's the prominence of the city, not the prominence of the individual, that determines the notability of mayors — the prominence of the individual would be an utterly meaningless criterion that wouldn't exclude anybody at all. "Regional prominence" isn't the ideal wording, I grant you, and I'll pursue rewording the criterion — but generally, the standard that's actually applied by most AFDers when a mayor comes up for debate on here is that the city has a population in the vicinity of 50,000 or more; the only reason the policy criterion isn't worded that way is because policy statements aren't supposed to cite arbitrary cutoffs. Bearcat (talk) 18:33, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And as for the part about "principally because of Mr. Ferri's status as an unelected candidate in the current Canadian federal election", the facts are these: the current article was created on March 29, two days after he got the Liberal nomination in the current federal election. Before that, he was a stable redirect to Vaughan City Council for over five years. Bearcat (talk) 00:15, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that he did not have an article on here until recently is rather due to the fact that Ferri was not allowed to have an article on here due to some squabbling between some illigitimate wikipedia contributors and other wikipedians that resulted in all vaughan articles being subject to oversight - until very recently. Polyscigrad (talk) 08:49, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, that oversight could easily have included keeping the article but imposing strict NPOV monitoring and editor bans and page protection. It went to "redirect to the city council" instead not because of the edit war itself — which had other solutions — but because there was a clear consensus established that Vaughan is not large enough for its city councillors to be considered notable just for being city councillors. (And regional/county councillors aren't notable just for holding that office, either; the lowest level of office at which a person is considered automatically notable on here just for holding a political office is provincial MPP.) And I was one of the administrators involved in sorting out the whole VaughanWatch mess in the first place, so I hardly need to be schooled on what did or didn't happen. Bearcat (talk) 18:33, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Seems to pass WP:GNG handily by virtue of the awards he has received. Didn't bother with checking to see if he passed WP:POLITICIAN since it was necessary in this case. Dennis Brown (talk) 22:52, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The article doesn't suggest that he's ever won any award that would confer inherent notability on him just because of the award itself. The jubilee medals are a program of volunteer recognition which every individual community across Canada has the discretion to present to numerous local community builders and/or heroes and/or nice kids who walk Old Lady Szumigalski's dog every afternoon, for a total of tens of thousands of awardees each time there's a medal program, so a person is not encyclopedically notable just for winning one. Bearcat (talk) 00:51, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:POLITICIAN and WP:GNG. The limited coverage is all routine or passing or primary. The awards he received are minor and do not confer inherent notability. (the 125th anniversary medal was given to 42,000+ people, similar numbers for the QEII medal). Ravendrop 23:07, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:36, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:36, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep PassesWP:POLITICIAN and WP:GNG. I think it passes both of these tests.

I want to begin this comment with this: Bearcat suggested "If he wins the election, then he can have a standalone article." Well, the article was suggested for deletion on April 15 - the ten day discussion period will end on April 25 - and, the election, is one week later on May 2 - as such, if it is decided that the article should be deleted, I would suggest leaving the article up until after the election so it saves everyone the hassle of deleting it and then re-writing it/posting it. Can we have consensus on that?

On the other points - some have suggested that his awards are not particularly notable. To those I suggest two things: Firstly, he has received 3 consecutive government awards (the Corps D’Elite, confederation, and jubiliee awards) at each time they were given out. This should raise the noteworthyness of him receiving these awards - while many were given out, how many people have recieved all three? Secondly, is the exclusiveness of an award the only benchmark used to determine its notability? - I do not see anything referencing this on the notability pages - as such, it seems as though this is being read in. Rather, the test is whether the award is Significant and Well-Known. For those in the public service industry, not only are the Corps D’Elite, confederation, and jubiliee awards well-known and significant, so too are the beacon award and the silverkeystone award - and these are much more exclusive. I understand that not all people know of these awards, just like many outside the movie industry would not know the The MPSE Award or the TFCA Award - while for those in the movie industry, they are well known and incredibly significant. My point here is that the awards that the subject has received are significant and well-known in the public service industry, in fact, I would suggest they are among the most significant and well known, in their industry - public service. This must be taken into consideration. While the subject did not win an Oscar or the order of canada - we should not define the definition of significant and well-known awards so narrowly.

Regarding the news coverage: I have added 13 newspaper articles on the subject. These articles do not mention the subject in passing - rather they are full articles on the subject, his biography, and his work. I received the articles, and many more, after having contacted the subject about 2 weeks ago for more articles on him that may not be available online after a suggestion of this by another wikipedia member. Polyscigrad (talk) 08:31, 17 April 2011 (UTC)— Polyscigrad (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

It also wouldn't be at all difficult to recreate the article if he wins the current election; for one thing, administrators have the power to restore deleted articles. Bearcat (talk) 18:53, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Fails WP:POLITICIAN and WP:GNG. Coverage is local or passing in nature and the awards he received are minor and do not confer inherent notability. ttonyb (talk) 15:54, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per WP:POLITICIAN and WP:GNG. The awards he received are not significant. - SudoGhost (talk) 18:05, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep for a general article supported with multiple reliable references per GNG. This appears to be a case of a deletion nomination possibly posted by a supporter of Ferri's political rival. Smacks of censorship, highly undemocratic and contrary to Wikipedia's stated goals. HarryZilber (talk) 19:07, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Can the ad hominem assertions. It's a case of Wikipedia administrator enforcing Wikipedia inclusion policies; if the highest level of elected office that a politician has actually attained is a city council seat in a mid-sized non-metropolitan city, then they simply don't meet WP:GNG regardless of what political party they are or aren't associated with. And I've deleted or proposed the deletion of articles about unelected candidates from all political parties in the current election, including the party I personally plan to vote for, so there's no "bias" issue to be had here — nor is it "undemocratic" or "contrary to Wikipedia's stated goals". Bearcat (talk) 18:19, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Also, Wikipedia is not a democracy. - SudoGhost (talk) 18:47, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So obviously your deletion of articles of people you don't agree with supports Wikipedia's goals of "a world in which every single human being can freely share in the sum of all knowledge. That's our commitment.". I and others are truly unimpressed. While Wikipedia is not a democracy, its stated goals don't include wiping out articles of politicians you don't agree with. At one point Barack Obama was a politician of similar stripe to Mr. Ferri and the other Liberal Party and Green Party candidates you're trying to erase off Wikipedia. I suggest you're doing a great disservice to the broader Wikipedia readership, and since you're Wikilawyering notability more cites to reliable sources will be added. HarryZilber (talk) 03:02, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment He is not a politician I disagree with. I'm not Canadian, I've never been to Canada, and I have no opinion of this person one way or the other. I do, however, have an opinion on the article, and that opinion is that the article is too soon to be an article, at best. Using your example, if Barack Obama had a Wikipedia article before any notability, it would have been deleted as well, and then recreated when he became notable. I would suggest you assume good faith in your fellow editors, and not assume they have an agenda simply because they have an opinion on an AfD that differs from you own. - SudoGhost (talk) 03:35, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – Harryzilber, frustration can make one say all manner of regrettable things, but these allegations of censorship and political bias are not only unsupported they are uncivil and are disagreeable. I see nothing that even remotely supports your allegations. You are in your right to disagree with another editor, but not at the expense of civility nor in such a disagreeable manner. Rather than further dilute this page with unsupported statements, I suggest you take this to the individual talk pages. ttonyb (talk) 03:46, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
HarryZilber, nobody (including me) said anything about disagreeing with his politics — and you don't know what my political views are anyway, so you have no grounds to assume anything about whether I agree with Mr. Ferri's politics or not. But that's simply not the issue here: any politician, regardless of party affiliation or ideology, can have an article if they've held a notable political office, and any politician, regardless of party affiliation or ideology, cannot have an article if they haven't. It's really that simple, and has nothing to do with who likes or doesn't like his political views. It's not his views that determine whether he qualifies for an article or not; it's whether or not he's actually held a political office that's notable enough to warrant an encyclopedia article, and there's a longstanding prior consensus that a seat on Vaughan's city council is not a notable office. If he wins a seat in the federal election, an article will be created in due time (and probably by me anyway, since I'm the guy who usually starts most of the new stubs about newly elected Canadian MPs or MLAs.) But until he's actually won that seat, he simply has not yet held a position that would make him notable per WP:POLITICIAN — and that's true no matter what party he's running for. Bearcat (talk) 09:36, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The coverage appears to be local in scope at best, and the awards do not appear particularly significant, which makes passing WP:GNG questionable. Sandstein 10:08, 23 April 2011 (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.