Regarding the stated speedy rationale that article is mainly a criticism of a non-notable person that implies the subject inflates his own importance: it warrants mention that (a) Ottawa is a major metropolitan city whose past and present city councillors are notable enough, per WP:OUTCOMES#Politicians, to have Wikipedia articles, and (b) the nominator, under a prior identity, is the person responsible for adding most of the criticism "that implies the subject inflates his own importance", and on at least one previous occasion tried to have the article deleted on the grounds that it was a puff piece that didn't include the criticism that he now cites as the reason why it should be deleted (as well as another time when he removed almost all of the article's content and then tried to have it speedied as a blogger whose article made no other claim of notability at all — and another time when he replaced the article with a WP:COPYVIO commentary that was pure criticism of Bourque without even the slightest attempt at balance or fairness.) If there are BLP concerns, then they can be addressed by removing the problematic content — not by entirely deleting an article about a person who legitimately served in a notable political role.
This isn't a particularly good article, I won't argue with that — but the nominator has a history of targeting Bourque's article for personal reasons that fall very much outside the purview of Wikipedia policy and practice, and is directly responsible for a lot of the article's current problems. Bearcat (talk) 15:21, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
- For the record, I asked the BLP noticeboard to come in and do a third party review of this article for neutrality and conformity with BLP, and a noticeboard volunteer has come in and quite rightly trimmed some of the problematic content. So hopefully that should resolve the matter to everyone's satisfaction. Bearcat (talk) 00:41, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
