Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robert Lutczyk

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. WP:BIODELETE: "If a deletion discussion of any biographical article (of whether a well known or less known individual) has received few or no comments from any editor besides the nominator, the discussion may be closed at the closer's discretion and best judgment." j⚛e decker ^talk 19:13, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Lutczyk

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

Problematic WP:BLP of a person whose primary claim of notability is as a city councillor in a city not large enough to confer notability on its city councillors under WP:NPOL, and whose sourcing is almost entirely of the primary (city's own website), unreliable (Blogspot) or "local weekly that's not widely distributed enough to count toward the notability test" (Oshawa Express) varieties. Which leaves the main reason why he might qualify for an article as a single two-day blip of major-daily newspaper coverage that he got when he allegedly committed a crime after he was out of office — but that just makes him a WP:BLP1E. According to a ProQuest search, further, he still hadn't actually gone to trial for the crime in question as of the last time any newspaper in all of Canada deigned to write anything about the matter at all (and even that deign was a passing acknowledgement of his existence in an article about the 2014 municipal election, not an article that was in any way substantively about him.) So under BLP1E, we should strongly consider not keeping an article about him as (a) reliable sources covered him only in the context of a single event; (b) he is, and is likely to remain, a low-profile individual; and (c) the event is not significant. And under WP:PERP, we should strongly consider not keeping an article about him as he hasn't verifiably been convicted of anything. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 05:39, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 06:10, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 06:12, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:29, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 06:14, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Bearcat's analysis is well-researched, persuasive and correct. Per BLP policy, we shouldn't base an article about an otherwise non-notable city council member based on a criminal charge without conviction. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:21, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:54, 11 February 2015 (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.