Deletion of Bruce Davidson (Ontario politician)

Comment: per nom. No sustainable coverage. Fails  and  as well as all notability guidelines
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:BASIC||WP:NPOL)

Comment: 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  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  (another rule which didn't exist yet in 2006), and literally just makes him a  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
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NPOL||WP:PERP||WP:BLP1E||WP:10YT)