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. —  JJMC89 ( T· C) 00:20, 14 July 2019 (UTC) reply

Bruce Davidson (Ontario politician) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)

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

The subject is known as a Commissioner of Planning and Development for North York and an unsuccessful candidate for North York's Board of Control. All of the sourcing in the article is local coverage (from the Globe and Mail and there does not appear to be any recent online coverage of the subject). As a candidate, the subject would fail WP:NPOL and I am not convinced the subject meets the notability requirements of an international encyclopedia. Enos733 ( talk) 00:08, 7 July 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Enos733 ( talk) 00:08, 7 July 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Enos733 ( talk) 00:08, 7 July 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Enos733 ( talk) 00:08, 7 July 2019 (UTC) reply

• Delete per nom. No sustainable coverage. Fails WP:BASIC and WP:NPOL as well as all notability guidelines. - AuthorAuthor ( talk) 01:56, 7 July 2019 (UTC) reply
• Delete. Just to be clear, some aspects of the nominator's reasoning aren't actually applicable to this. We do not have any requirement that a person who held political office in the 1970s and 1980s still has to show up in web-accessible media coverage dated within the 2010s — as long as the cited sources provide sufficient evidence that the person clears our notability standards, we are allowed to base an article on archived print-only coverage that existed only within the person's own time, and do not need to show that their coverage kept going into the Google era. And The Globe and Mail is also not a "local" newspaper in the sense that normally applies to articles about local political officials — it's a national newspaper that concentrates primarily on national news. It does happen to be based in Toronto by virtue of Toronto being Canada's largest city and the home of most of its national media operations, but it is not a publisher of purely local-interest Toronto news in the "house fire on Pape Avenue kills family of five" sense.
  The actual problem here, rather, is simply that this was written 13 years ago, at a time when our notability standards for local political figures were much less well-developed than they are now, and those standards have since been considerably tightened up. As WP:NPOL now stands, neither being commissioner of planning and development in a suburban town nor being an unsuccessful candidate for the town's board of control constitute an automatic pass of NPOL #2 — and he was not charged with or convicted of a crime, so this falls afoul of WP:PERP (another rule which didn't exist yet in 2006), and literally just makes him a WP:BLP1E rather than a person who would pass the ten-year test as a subject of enduring internationalized public interest. So this was a good faith creation under the rules that pertained in 2006, but he doesn't have a strong enough notability claim to be retained under the rules that apply in 2019.
  We don't just automatically keep an article about everybody who technically surpasses an arbitrary number of footnotes: GNG is also a question of evaluating the context of what a person is getting coverage for, but receiving nationalized coverage in the context of an untried and unconvicted corruption allegation is not a context that clinches the permanent encyclopedic notability of a person who would otherwise fail NPOL. If he'd been found guilty, it would be a different story. Bearcat ( talk) 14:12, 7 July 2019 (UTC) reply
• Comment - 12+ year old page. I'd like to hear what the creator has to say. MaskedSinger ( talk) 17:28, 7 July 2019 (UTC) reply

The creator's not around on a regular basis anymore. Bearcat ( talk) 19:42, 7 July 2019 (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.