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 of the debate was Keep. A small note to some of the people voting here: long comments spanning multiple paragraphs do not help your case, and when I read these votes when closing AfDs votes, my eyes start to glaze over after a few sentences, so you're really just wasting your time. A simple and concise comment stating your vote and rationale behind that vote is all you need. Anything more makes it harder for us to process, which leads to an article staying in AfD for much longer than it really should. Also, attacking those on the other side of the debate, and comments such as "SHAME ON YOU" breaks Wikipedia's policy of No personal attacks. Deathphoenix 05:26, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Simon Strelchik[edit]

Delete - Wikipedia's guidelines for living people's biographies when discussing politicians reads "Major local political figures who receive significant press coverage" and also mentions people holding the office of MP, MPP and so on. Strelchik does not fall into either of these categories. pm_shef 18:44, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• KeepThis article of Mr. Strelchik is very note worthy and from the tone of the unsigend (PM_shef) above sounds very politically motivated. Mr. Strelchik is currently President of the New Democratic Party of Canada EDA, he has been nominated for three Noble Peace Prize's and he was the candidate of record for the New Democratic Party of Canada in the Thornhill riding in the recent Canadian federal election. Please keep in mind that this request to delete was from the son of a candidate that ran against Mr. Strelchik in a municipal election a number of years ago. Mr. Strelchik is more worthy of an article than PM_shef’s father, which he posted a while back.--69.156.151.238 18:53, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• For clarification, Strelchik was not nominated for any nobel peace prizes. The organization that he happened to be a founding member (and director) of was nominated, not him. Yes, I'm the son of a councillor, Alan Shefman, Mr. Strelchik's opponent in the election before last, that has been established long ago on here and is not germane. As well, as you can see from the Wiki guidelines, being President of the NDP EDA in Thornhill does not constitute notability. Finally, again if you go to the Wiki Guidelines for Bios, Strelchik does not pass the Google Test, the 100 Year Test or the Verifiability Test. pm_shef 21:54, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• For clarification, Strelchik was in fact part of a group of people that has been nominated for the noble peace prize. He was one of the founding directors of the organization that has been nominated. This is verifiable.--69.156.151.238 19:12, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • He is a founding member of an organization which was nominated. He was not nominated, though I'd welcome any concrete proof you have to the contrary. And even so, being nominated for the prize still does not make one noteable - again, see wiki guidelines.pm_shef 21:52, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• As a final note before I stop commenting here, please consult wiht the Wiki Bio guidelines (link above) before voting. Do not vote on politics, vote on rules. pm_shef 21:52, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete nn. mikka (t) 22:04, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep major party candidate in a federal election. We actually have many hundreds of articles on these people. - SimonP 02:16, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep very notable person. this attempt to delete is politically motivated. We are having many proplems here in the city of Vaughan from a few elected officials who think they can dictate to everyone. --Eyeonvaughan 04:32, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• I dont think this article should be completely deleted, but definetly shortenned, to, as I have said, 2 or 3 sentences. Theonlyedge 22:49, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Strelchik is a rising star in his community. His list of accomplishments are amazing given his age, and he was very skillful and articulate in the election.

If his opponents each deserve pages, he does as well. In fact he deserves a page for the sole fact that he founded along with Craig Keilburger one of the most important huminitarian organizations in the world. And he crafted along with Mayors and Councillors the very influential York no-smoking bylaw. Not to mention the fact that his campaign received the highest percentage increase in votes in the election. Keep CasanovaAlive

Note: user's first-ever edits under this user name were to this page and the Simon Strelchik article's talk page. Bearcat 08:40, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per CasanovaAlive --TheKvetch 00:45, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• For clarification, past AFD's on unelected candidates have pretty consistently sawed off at the compromise position that they can be kept in a merged party candidates in X election list, but not generally as separate biographical articles unless they meet WP:BIO on other grounds beyond having been a political candidate. It may not be the ideal situation for some purposes, but as things currently stand it's what the established consensus happens to be. Accordingly, merge into New Democratic Party candidates, 2006 Canadian election. Bearcat 03:38, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• For clarification, Strelchik meets the WP:BIO because he is a longstanding "Major local political figure who receive significant press coverage." Also, as a founder of Free the Children, and an author of the influential York Region No Smoking Bylaw, he is a "Person achieving renown or notoriety for their involvement in newsworthy events." Israelforever
• York By-law

Note: user's first-ever edits under this user name were to this page. Bearcat 08:40, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per SimonP. Ardenn 16:48, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep. Article should focus on his work in founding Free the Children, not his NDP candidacy. That is his claim to notability. Otherwise merge into New Democratic Party candidates, 2006 Canadian election as per Bearcat. Luigizanasi 18:15, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Party candidates in X election is precedent, yes, but I think it's getting awfully clumsy, especially when you have subsets of each sets of candidates who run again in Y election, and Z... do you have to have multiple iterations of the same person? Or do you refer additional references to the same repeat candidate to... the first? the most recent? the most important? But this is a broader discussion. Weak keep or (regular) merge. To Simon's supporters: Please don't try to stuff the ballot box here; let invested members of the Wikipedia community judge whether to take the article in on its own suitability. Nothing's keeping you from putting up a page about Simon on your own website. :) Samaritan 20:00, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

strong keep to Simon's non-supporters please don't try to stuff the ballot box here. let non-partisan wiki members judge this article. This attempt to delete is obviously politically motivated by a political opposition.--Eyeonvaughan 20:35, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Eyeonvaughan, the only ballot-stuffing going on here is from supporters of the article. Remember, WP:SOCK clearly spells out that contributors whose first known edit is to an AFD are at best suspicious, and at worst irrelevant and disregardable. And, for the record, you can can the allegations of partisan attacks; whatever your feelings about pm_shef, Wikipedia has a strict policy of assuming good faith in a dispute — and for what it's worth, I'm an NDPer and so's Samaritan, and we both expressed reservations about the article's keepworthiness too. Bearcat 22:52, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note that the puppets are now also vandalizing the article's talk page to remove any discussion they deem unfavourable to the article subject, and also blanking any comments to their own talk pages advising them of Wikipedia policy in the matter. Bearcat 01:43, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Delete to the entire City of Vaughan if it will end this endless debate on their no-name, non-notable city councillors. --Dogbreathcanada 05:37, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep To quote the very first disgruntled poster: "Wikipedia's guidelines for living people's biographies when discussing politicians reads 'Major local political figures who receive significant press coverage...'" WELL .... Mr. Strelchik is most definitely a local political figure who has received significant press coverage: he was chosen as a local hero by the Thornhill Post in 2000, and the media has consistently reported on his community work and advocacy. As well, running for parliament as the NDP Canadidate in the last federal election at such a young age is also a MAJOR accomplishment, as well as a MAJOR position to be in, and this most definitely makes him a noteworthy individual. While Wikipedia criteria mentions people holding the office of MP, MPP and so on, this is NOT a prerequisite for having a Wikipedia article of mention and his personal and political accomplishments as they stand make him a noteworthy individual. PERIOD.

As an aside, I have been silently watching this thread and simply because I read and dont post does not make me (or anyone) a PUPPET, and I resent the accusation made from afar in my silence and absence from posting in all candor. This is, in my humble opinion, simply a weak tactic made only to circumvent people such as myself from posting in support of Mr. Strelchik's article, and to discredit your opposition for same. However, in my case it had the opposite effect cos I do NOT respond positively to passive aggressive bullying - I never have, and I never will. As the accuracy of the article (Note: with minor clarification/revision Re: The organization for which he was a founding member has been nominated for 3 Nobel Peace Prizes as previously mentioned), AND Mr. Strelchik's political and personal accomplishments have already been verified, AND he has (obviously) met the Wikipedia criteria as outlined above, why all the personal attacks on his accomplishments or his right to have a Wikipedia article?* Consequently, I have to question what motivations or personal agendas are really in play here in attempting to discredit or disallow his being mentioned singularly on Wikipedia. If ANY other individual made such strides in life they too would be entitled to a Wikipedia article, would they not? Personally, I became aware of Simon's many stellar accomplishments during the recent federal election, and I was duly impressed and remain so. Why arent YOU? I now actively watch his political progress due to his personal commitment and huge potential for positive social impact with great interest and support -- so much so that I recently became an NDP Party Volunteer. He is truly inspiring in his dedication and commitment. In my humble opinion, as this IS a forum in which to express one's opinion on Wikipedia articles, and NOT a forum in which to make personal attacks on individuals for personal reasons, your negative arguments at this stage (considering my comments above*) appear to be rather petty to this poster who has absolutely NO STRINGS attached to her fingers or her brain as she types this. Mr. Strelchik's record and political profile speak for themselves, I believe, and I am of the opinion that the article should be kept as is, and hope Wikipedia's Administrator's agree as a truthful account SHOULD be told without personal resentments or censorship and he most definitely warrants individual mention, and if someone chooses to DELETE my posting in order to protect their own agenda....SHAME ON YOU.

Note: Above unsigned vote from User:CelticChick (talk, diff). User's first-ever edit under this user name was to this page. Samaritan 19:16, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To the anon contributor above: it is explicitly spelled out in Wikipedia policy that these debates are to represent the consensus of established Wikipedia users — people who have enough of a track record around here that we can trust their view of an article's notability to be objective. An editor whose first-ever contribution is to an AFD debate can be disregarded in the final tally, because they don't have that record of reliability — the chances are too high that they're a personal friend of the article subject who came here to stack the vote, and we simply don't allow that kind of thing (or else every high school class president in North America would have an article, because he could just get all his drinking buddies and football teammates to come game the system.) You may not like the policy, but it's there, and we're not going to disregard it just because a newbie thinks it's inconvenient.

Frankly, I don't believe for a bleeding second that you just happened to find this article and are providing a purely objective view. Given what's been going on here and on the article over the last few days (and for months over a whole subset of other York Region politicians), without even knowing any of you I can state categorically that you're almost certainly a personal friend of Mr. Strelchik's. The onus is not on us to trust you; it's on you to prove that your words can be taken as an objective view. What you and your talk-page-blanking friends need to be aware of is that you don't have a right to disrupt Wikipedia to prove a point, and this kind of behaviour frankly makes Wikipedians even less inclined to take your side. In fact, in the few years I've been editing Wikipedia, I've never seen a single solitary case where a genuinely notable person needed a sockpuppet swarm to protect their article for them — this kind of behaviour almost invariably surrounds articles about people whose inflated egos outweigh their actual encyclopedia-worthiness.

If Simon's legitimately notable, then he doesn't need a bunch of hooligans running around breaking every one of Wikipedia's rules to protect him; he needs a properly-reasoned, mature, calm discussion to be conducted within the rules. So can the bullshit, all of you, and work with us here. Bearcat 02:10, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For Clarification WOW. 1. I AM a regular user of Wikipedia, and do extensive research on this site in order to find the most current info on many things. I also often refer people to this site as well so I have a vested interest in it's accuracy and inclusion of what I believe is important reference information, but admit I do not post, or haven't, before now (obviously) so I am not (yet) "established".

2. I am new to being involved in politics, and the NDP party, as I said, but to the last poster: you assume WAY too much about me from my posting. First of all, I am NOT a personal friend of Mr. Strelchik's, although I did meet him post-election in November, and spoke with him at length at that time, and was duly impressed with his accomplishments, as I believe I said. Now, because I am new to posting, everything I said about his accomplishments is UNsubstantiated? ok ignore me than ... but the facts about what the guy has done speak for themselves.

3. Since the election I have taken an active interest in following many NDP party members, and found this particular 'edit' page by a simple search and ultimately I felt compelled to post something, as i said previously. You dont believe me? Tough. Sorry ... no offence but you have attacked me for NO REASON and Im a tad TICKED OFF at this point. Regardless, I was dismayed by what was being said, and what I believed (and still believe) were obvious 'personal' agendas against Mr. Strelchik, and admit I felt compelled to post something in support of the article about him. I have no personal interest or benefit from doing so. MY arguments are (as outlined previously) simply that the article about him should be maintained on the site in accordance with the site's guidelines because his accomplishments are noteworthy. The other 'established' users ALSO verify the accuracy of the information posted, they just argue that they arent important ENOUGH. Isnt that the administrator's job to determine THO?

4. YES this is my first posting ever and after THIS most probably my last because in choosing to post on this matter, (naively perhaps?) I am now forced to read rude aspersions on MY character? All I can say is ...WOW. While I was fine with the administrators editing my posting if they saw fit to do so, I didnt realize that in posting a supportive commentary, because I am a relative unknown, that it would then leave ME open to be accused of all kinds of ...'bullshit' I think the term was? Again, all I really can say is WOW.

5. I have NO PROBLEM with the guidelines for this site, and IN FACT am arguing, ironically, in support of them! Simply because this is my first posting, I am accused of some alliance with Mr. Strelchik any my opinion doesnt count? Again ... WOW. Ironically, I tried to keep the personal attacks out of it, and did not direct any criticisms AT anyone in particular, and simply expressed my personal opinion about what I felt about the guy's accomplishments, using the site's guidelines to support my arguments. BUT could you actually be saying that an unknown who supports substantiated information is given less importance than negative arguments based on personal agendas simply because of the proflic postings of the other "users/posters"? Good experiential data THERE boyo. Isnt it quality NOT quantity that REALLY matters when it comes to INFORMATION?

6. I feel wholly insulted to be called a "hooligan", and I am amazed that my ONE posting is considered a "swatpocket swarm" or whatever the hell THAT is! I felt that negative attacks that I saw in this thread should have an alternate voice for the site administrator's consideration, and I opted to be that voice. One supportive posting by me and this is what you choose to post about me? A glaring personal attack? WOW.

7. My posting was anonymous ONLY because I obviously do not know how to post properly. I have no problem in identifying myself, and did, or thought I did, and will once again.

8. To the Site Administrators: This further commentary, and my prior arguments, were made simply to support the article as meeting the site's criteria because I strongly felt, and feel, that Mr. Strelchik's accomplishments ARE most definitely noteworthy. As one poster said here it is important "to vote on rules, not politics", which is ALL I argued in support of to begin with! I HOPE that you will determine this matter on THAT basis, without prejudice.

I can only hope. Have a great day. CelticChick (in case I post this wrong again)

• Merge to NDP candidates, 2006 Canadian federal election. --maclean25 21:18, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment' CelticChick, this is not the place for your personal rants, FYI, User:Bearcat IS an Administrator and throughout all of these Vaughan/Thornhill AfD's, has been remarkably cool-headed and I think we all owe him a debt of gratitude for that. Wikipedia does not need these 'holier-than-thou' rants. pm_shef 01:45, 27 February 2006 (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.