Talk:Netherlands national cricket team

Previous Post

Note to Readers: The original article was speedily deleted as a G11, an action that was opposed by numerous admins (see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_review#Mark_Warner_.28Canadian_politician.29_.28closed.29). The comment below was added to the talk page during that time as an early response to the debate:

• The above is a bit of a misrepresentation of the discussion. A number editors thought the wrong process was used to delete the article and that an AFD should have been used instead. Others felt there should be an article but not the article that existed before. I believe only three individuals supported the previous article and two of the three are associated with Warner. Reginald Perrin 01:23, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
• In other words, the action of "speedy deletion as a G11" was "opposed by numerous admins" ... Thanks for the clarification :) --Grandmasterkush 23:27, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Your summary is selective. Reginald Perrin 02:52, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I submitted the original article and am not Mark Warner (disclosure: I received biographical information from Mark Warner by email to write the article, and used his site markwarner.ca for material).

Mr. Warner is mentioned in articles and blog posts, and is running in a riding in Toronto (Toronto Centre) that has been covered more extensively in the press than other ridings. Many Canadians (so far politics geeks!) are watching Toronto Centre with interest and are interested in its candidates (search google for blog articles and discussions). Not only is this a large and diverse riding in Canada's largest city, but the interest is also largely due to the fact that Bob Rae, the Liberal Party candidate running in the riding, is the former premier of Ontario and also unsuccessfully ran for the leadership of the Liberal party. It'll be really interesting to see who takes the riding! Mr. Warner, of the Conservative Party, and El-Farouk Khaki, of the NDP party, are "Wikipediaworthy" in the sense that Canadians are interested in finding more about them. They are mentioned in articles about the riding, articles about Mr. Rae, and have articles explicitly about them as well. I would defend the existence of both candidate's articles on Wikipedia. Neither are spam.

To respond to GreenJoe, I'd say both of the other contenders for Toronto Centre, Mr. Warner and Mr. Khaki are of similar levels of notoriety. Both are well known in their own respective communities. I notice the Green Party candidates who have articles by GreenJoe are truly "nobodies" compared to Warner and Khaki. Media and blogs are interested in Warner/Khaki because of a) the riding they are running in and b) who they are running against. It seems nobody is challenging the existence of Khaki's article, but that couldn't have anything to do with any bias among some users here (see history of edits and the related profiles and also the disclosed NDP affiliations of a local admin) now could it? Again, I think all candidates in this riding should have Wikipedia articles. It would be nice if everyone wasn't trying to use wikipedia's rules to sabotage the articles of candidates other than the one they are supporting.

-- Grandmasterkush 06:03, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Regarding Article Move back to "Canadian politician"

Bearcat, Reginald Perrin, and Admins-At-Large,

I noticed Mark Warner was changed from "Canadian Politician" to "Canadian Lawyer", but I'm not sure that the politicking is over WRT to the fallout from Warner being ousted as a Candidate. I would imagine that the majority of people searching for information on Mark Warner at this point in Wikipedia are looking for a politician first, and lawyer second. I undid the change, for now, but of course, you guys are free to weigh in. In this case, I'd seek Bearcat's (a frequent editor of this article) and other admins' collective wisdom as they are the more experienced Wikipedians of the bunch.

To the point that the politicking isn't over, just this month Dion was publicly proclaiming "his Party is ready to roll out the welcome mat for Mark Warner" (Torstar). Since Deborah Coyne has stepped down in Toronto Danforth, there are rumours flying all over the blogosphere about Warner potentially running for the Liberal party in Toronto Danforth. A Google search for "http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=%22mark+warner%22+%22toronto+danforth%22" turns up all sorts of blog articles for your enjoyment (in case you're feeling lazy, here's one: http://spacing.ca/wire/?cat=31 : "it’s likely Mr. Warner will appear on my doorstep again in the future")

More importantly, I've seen speculation in more traditional media as well (eg: "Coyne making room for Mark Warner?" -- a Google cache of the page (not requiring login credentials) is at: http://72.14.205.104/search?q=cache:Apxh5-_3diEJ:www.nationalnewswatch.com/index.php%3Foption%3Dcom_content%26task%3Dview%26id%3D21931%26Itemid%3D41+%22Coyne+making+room+for+ousted+Tory+Mark%22&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=ca&client=firefox-a).

To top it all off, Warner himself has quotes in published sources where he remains open to the idea of accepting Dion's offer to run for the Liberals: "Warner said the same day [he received news of Dion's invite] that he was flattered. 'It is nice to be wanted. It is something I’d consider'" (http://www.towncrieronline.ca/main/main.php?direction=viewstory&storyid=6403&rootcatid=&rootsubcatid)

While Reginald's reasoning for making the change is logical, I think its clearly premature. All this news is "hot" in that it has all happened WITHIN THIS MONTH. By keeping Warner's tag as "Canadian politician", Wikipedia stays current and easy-to-search for a key player in an "open" issue and point of interest for the residents of Toronto-Centre, Toronto-Danforth, and anyone else interested in politics. I mean this guy was first slated to be running against Rae, and in TO Danforth, he'd be running against Layton!

I'll agree with Reginald's change when the Liberals find another candidate for TO-Danforth (provided it isn't Warner!). At that time, it would be more appropriate to reclass Warner as a lawyer, but certainly not yet.

By the way, kudos to both Reginald and Bearcat for their edits when Warner was ousted as a candidate. I took a peek a couple times and thought there were some pretty solid contributions.

Cheers, --Grandmasterkush (talk) 00:57, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Personally, I'd have to agree he should be disambiguated as a politician first — as of today, being ousted as a Conservative Party electoral candidate is by far the thing he's most famous and most notable for. And as Grandmaster Kush notes, the possibility of his being nominated to stand in another riding for another party is still very much open, so he's not officially out of politics yet. This can certainly be moved at a later date if need be, but it would essentially be original research for Wikipedia to declare that Warner isn't a politician anymore until such time as Warner rules out any future electoral candidacies.

Though I will make the minor point that most people looking for a Wikipedia article on Warner would just search for "Mark Warner", hit the dab page, and get directed from there to the correct article no matter what title it was at — and the politician title would continue to exist as a redirect to the lawyer one anyway. So the title isn't really going to make a meaningful difference in whether people can find the article or not. Bearcat (talk) 01:46, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm fine with taking a wait and see attitude - the issue should be revisited in the future however (perhaps once there's an election) if time has passed and Warner's political career hasn't been reactivated. If in a year or two he's active as an international trade lawyer and possibly writing articles, teaching, and being quoted as such it would be odd and possibly damaging for him to be stuck with the "politician" label because, for one year of his 20 some years of professional activity was spent as a politician rather than a lawyer. Reginald Perrin (talk) 00:15, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Warner Liberal Candidacy

The news articles that stated Warner was thinking of running are a few months old. The National Post article appeared today and quotes Warner directly. His website hasn't been updated for awhile so the news article is more current. Please don't remove properly sourced material from reliable sources. You can't unilaterally decide that a news article isn't reliable because you personally disbelieve it. Are you alleging the Post made up the quote? If so, see if there's a correction in the paper tomorrow. If there is - then you can remove the cite. Reggie Perrin (talk) 02:44, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

The post on Warner's website is dated January 18, 2008. The article in the Post appeared today. Again, if it's wrong there will be a correction tomorrow. Otherwise there's no reason to challenge it. Reggie Perrin (talk) 02:47, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Reginald, Warner web site was recently updated. The date of the intro letter is January 18th. There are other recent articles that are consistent with Warner's web site and that indicate Warner is considering running. See: http://www.eesti.ca/main.php?op=article&articleid=18750&PHPSESSID=e9424e778d794aed7a95bc14d7544508 (January 17th); http://www.insidetoronto.com/news/villager/article/39252?thePub=villager (January 16th) and http://insidetoronto.com/news/NorthYork/article/39595 (January 18th). On the basis of this, I suggest that you are putting to much freight on one article in the National Post. Also, the quote from the Nat Post does not indicate that Warner has abandoned running. That appears to be the reporter's conclusion. What is the rush in changing this in light of the countervailing sources? I am not seeking a fight with you so I respectfully hope you will consider these comments seriously. --Kibomt (talk) 02:54, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

On what basis do you think the quotation in the Post is wrong and on what basis are you removing it from the article on Warner? Wikipedia isn't the place for wishful thinking - the quotation says what it says. Reggie Perrin (talk) 03:00, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

And as I said, the article is dated 29 January - the website letter is 18 January so the article is more recent. If you are right and the Post somehow misquoted Warner then we'll see a correction or clarification tomorrow or the next day. Otherwise, there is no reason whatsoever to disregard today's Post article. Reggie Perrin (talk) 03:02, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

The National Post story has been corrected. See: http://www.nationalpost.com/news/canada/Story.html?id=275289. I have amended the article. --Kibomt (talk) 13:54, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Well what do you know? Fair enough. Reggie Perrin (talk) 13:57, 31 January 2008 (UTC)