Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Paul Bocking

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. → Call me Hahc21 20:59, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Bocking[edit]

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

Article about a filmmaker and politician, with no strong evidence that he passes our notability rules for either endeavour. His "notability" as a filmmaker is sourced entirely to primary sources and coverage in local community weeklies, with no indication provided that his film actually secured any meaningful distribution or media coverage — and his "notability" as a politician is limited to his candidacy for a seat on Toronto City Council (candidates for office do not pass WP:POLITICIAN just for being candidates, and that's especially true when the office being sought is at the municipal level of government.) I'm willing to withdraw this if the sourcing can be beefed up to actually get him past either POLITICIAN or WP:CREATIVE, but if the Scarborough Mirror is the best you can do for sourcing then your subject has not cleared the bar. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 02:01, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 02:04, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 02:04, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:52, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:52, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep.Undecided. ~~Notable activist, often quoted in media, sufficient independent reliable sources meets the general notability guideline.~~ See below.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 21:55, 11 June 2014 (UTC)--Tomwsulcer (talk) 11:14, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Any activist worth the descriptor "activist" will get quoted a few times in newspaper articles, just because he's there to be quoted. He is not, however, the subject of those articles in which he gets quoted — which is what GNG requires. And your sourcing additions still relied primarily on minor neighbourhood weeklies, like the York Guardian and the Scarborough Mirror and the Toronto Observer, which don't surpass our reliable source rules. (Community weeklies might be acceptable for some confirmation of facts after enough other sources had been added to get the person over the notability hump, but they can't confer notability on a person by themselves as they're not broadly distributed enough.) Bearcat (talk) 16:07, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Toronto Sun is a major big-city Canadian daily so I don't see how it can be identified as a local paper; it has a readership of 143,475 daily 200,644 Sunday, weekly circulation was 956,482 in 2011. Further, Toronto is Canada's largest city with population close to 3 million. So, when they cover him here and here, the editors feel he is notable. I have not heard of a Wikipedia guideline which rules out newspapers such as the Scarborough Mirror; I used to write for a local paper in New Jersey and I had to check and double-check my facts like all reporters, and I could be held accountable if my reporting had been inaccurate; is there anything in the Scarborough Mirror which is incorrect or untrue? Further, if the subject was only an activist, or only a filmmaker, I'd agree there might be notability issues; but the subject is multidimensional, being a union leader, filmmaker, public speaker, candidate for public office; the net effect—or gestalt if you will—is a changemaker. Bocking is about his causes (workers' rights, transportation, etc) rather than himself, and reporters reflect this in their coverage.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 18:22, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say the Toronto Sun was an inherently invalid source — it is, however, a problematic one, as it's a Fleet Street-style tabloid newspaper that frequently inserts ideologically biased editorial commentary directly into its news coverage, and thus presents WP:NPOV problems. But the overarching problem with the Toronto Sun articles is, as I noted above, that Bocking is not the subject of the articles in question — his name appears in a couple of their articles giving a brief quote about something else, but that is not the same thing as substantive coverage in which he is the subject.

And yes, Wikipedia does deprecate low-circulation community weeklies as prima facie evidence of notability. They're not invalid for additional verification of facts after basic notability has been covered off by stronger sources, but they cannot confer notability if they are the article's main or only sources — because by their very nature, they cover many more things of exclusively local interest (church bake sales, purely local businesses, etc.) that don't belong in an encyclopedia. They're not discounted because they're somehow less trustworthy than major dailies — they're discounted because their coverage focus is too localized to adequately prove that a topic belongs in an encyclopedia with an international audience. Bearcat (talk) 21:09, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:20, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, --Mdann52talk to me! 07:57, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no evidence of notability beyond his candidacy; all the sources are but trivial mentions. Wikipedia is not an election billboard. -- Ohc ^¡digame! 08:27, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Based on Bearcat and Ohconfucius, changing Keep to Undecided (above). My sense is this subject is borderline notability, could go either way.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 11:14, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - There needs to be significant coverage about Bocking in independent reliable sources. Being quoted is not having an article written about you. -- Whpq (talk) 17:21, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A local activist and politician who does not pass GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:56, 1 July 2014 (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.