Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Geraldine Copps
- 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 consensus of the discussion is that
POLITICIAN was not met. This subject did have some mention in sourcing apart from her political career, raising the possibility of keeping under the GNG, but the invocation of NOTINERITED seems appropriate. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 15:52, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
]
Geraldine Copps
- Geraldine Copps (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
notability is not inherited. The article is "referenced", but only in a very poor style that includes the name of the newspaper and the date, but not the actual title of the reference in question — making it effectively an unreferenced article anyway, since the references aren't verifiable as things currently stand. And even then, none of the content suggests that she's more notable in any substantive way than most other city councillors who don't qualify for articles. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 19:17, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 19:54, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the ]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:07, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
- Keep per WP:GNG. There are several hundred articles with her exact name and "Hamilton" I found using Proquest. I only added one to to article so far, on her leaving council, which was an indepth piece exclusively about her. Below I listed a few other substantive pieces. The only thing preventing a comphrensive full length well cited article is somebody having the large amount of time/interest required. Given the poor state of the article, I won't cry if it's deleted, but think it does technically meet the requirements to be kept. --Rob (talk) 09:33, 25 June 2014 (UTC)]
- Mom, and colleagues, left out when minister spoke: [Final Edition] / Peters, KenView Profile. The Spectator [Hamilton, Ont] 06 May 1994: B1.
- Copps apologizes for 'waste capital of world' quip: [Final Edition] / Humphreys, Adrian. The Hamilton Spectator [Hamilton, Ont] 22 July 1993: A1/ FRONT.
- Copps quits Sludgegate probe team: [Final Edition] / The Hamilton Spectator [Hamilton, Ont] 19 Feb 1992: B3.
- Liberal MP's mother won't be renamed citizenship judge: [FINAL Edition] / The Gazette [Montreal, Que] 12 Mar 1985: B6.
- Keep - Politicians are the one category of biographies to whom GNG is generally not applied; instead a Special Notability high bar is frequently used, giving automatic passes to elected members of national and provincial assemblies, tending to give easy passes to national and provincial party leaders, and dealing with unelected politicians harshly on a case by case basis. Elected members of city councils are a grey area, with those of major metropolitan areas almost always kept while those of tiny towns usually treated as self-serving promotion. And so here we have a bio that is in the grey area of the grey area, an elected city council member from a mid-sized city. My opinion is that we should keep this one and here's why: it's a tolerably well done piece, it's a tolerably well sourced piece, and Wikipedia is better off with the piece than without it. Ignore All Rules, Use Common Sense. Carrite (talk) 15:41, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
- Delete Most of her mention in news media is inhereted from her late husband or her daughter. She is not independently notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:01, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
- Delete. Councillors in very large cities may be notable by virtue of their office, but Hamilton is nowhere near large enough to qualify. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:01, 2 July 2014 (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.