Talk:Mike Nickel

Promotional

There was a section of "external links" which only included a single link to Mr. Nickel's campaign website. I deleted it as it looked to be promotional. If you want to include a link to his website include it as a relevant reference. Thanks 198.48.136.149 (talk) 11:47, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Per WP:ELYES, "Wikipedia articles about any organization, person, website, or other entity should link to the subject's official site, if any." The article needs to be written from a neutral point of view; it does not follow that we can only link to articles that display a neutral point of view. Steve Smith (talk) 16:50, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for providing clarification. I thought it affected the unbiased nature of an encyclopedia entry 198.48.136.149 (talk) 16:14, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

Sabotage

Mr. Nickel is running for election as mayor this year and as such this article will see additional details added to it, as he gains relevancy. Not all will put him in a positive light - as he is a a controversial public figure. Details as per his political scandal while student union president were deleted by what I believe to be sabotage of the page. I have reverted those changes. These details are relevant to his political career and to his time as student union president, which is included in the document. Please do not abuse the page. Wikipedia is a source of information - and any verifiable information pertaining to this man should be included. Thank you. 198.48.136.149 (talk) 11:30, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

First, the removal of the material was clearly not "sabotage"; as Yeenosaurus (talk · contribs) explained in his edit summary, it seemed to give undue weight to a single incident from decades ago. I am neutral on that question, but please don't go around accusing good faith editors of engaging in "sabotage". Steve Smith (talk) 16:53, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Yes, the "scandal" he had as SU president is presented with undue weight. Since this Wiki article on Nickel is already short to begin with, including a minor, scarcely covered incident from his student career gives it more weight then it should get. The incident is not only irrelevant in his current political career, but the article cited does not mention Nickel more than once, meaning the coverage was not focused on him. In addition the article was only republished because it was "interesting, fun, or just plain weird" according to the newspaper, and not because of Nickel. Yeeno (talk) 🍁 22:17, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

It was relevant to his time as SU president... about the only thing anyone knows about his time as SU president. How much weight it lends is debatable - it is one sentence and is verifiable. As for the article it mentions exactly what the sentence says... it supports the statement. Should we be ignoring details of his political career that we don't think are favourable? Finally - yes it is relevant to his political career. SU president is a political position. That's how he started his political career. As well the wiki entry is on the person - not the person's political career. This sure looked like sabotage to me. Since there is no strong reason to omit this verifiable and significant detail of his political career, yet It can't seem to be included without it being deleted in under 12 hours - what is a fair compromise? If it was included in it's own section on controversies would it still get deleted?? I called it sabotage because it was not moved to a new section or organized to reduce it's "weight" but instead simply deleted. Wiki pages should not have verifiable relevant content deleted but rather moved and organized. Pages should improve over time and more content should be added. 198.48.136.149 (talk) 16:19, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

Per WP:CSECTION, "Controversy" sections are discouraged; the material should be incorporated into other sections. Having read the above and reflected, I agree with Yeenosaurus with respect to the Students' Union incident; the fact that the only coverage of this incident is in a retrospective feature of a student newspaper, is telling. If this were a notable aspect of Mike Nickel's political career, you would expect it to have garnered some mainstream news coverage (per WP:UNDUE, "Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources." In this case, the prominence of this episode in published, reliable sources is next to nil. I agree that the reprimand with respect to his dealings with other council members is appropriately included. Steve Smith (talk) 17:44, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

Untitled

I see that this article lacks information on the notability of its subject. I confess that after reading through the notability guidelines, I remain unclear on what makes a politician notable. If Mike Nickel isn't notable, I certainly won't contest the article's deletion; however, it seems to me that most of the other Edmonton city Councilors who've been given pages would also fail to meet the criteria (the exceptions, as I understand it, being Councilors Gibbons, Sloan, and Liebovici, all of whom also served as members of Alberta's legisalture).

Basically, I'd like some clarification of how one determines the notability of local politicians and, if Mike Nickel is notable, what information I should include in the article to make this clear.Sarcasticidealist 10:19, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Mike Nickel. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110705052531/http://www.epl.ca/edmonton-history/edmonton-elections/biographies-mayors-and-councillors?id=N to http://www.epl.ca/edmonton-history/edmonton-elections/biographies-mayors-and-councillors?id=N
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150614072723/http://edmonton.ctvnews.ca/election-2013/ward-eleven/mike-nickel-ward-eleven-candidate to http://edmonton.ctvnews.ca/election-2013/ward-eleven/mike-nickel-ward-eleven-candidate
• Added archive https://archive.is/20120714203704/http://repository.library.ualberta.ca/newspapers/GAT/1985/02/14/1/Ar00101.html to http://repository.library.ualberta.ca/newspapers/GAT/1985/02/14/1/Ar00101.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071018004706/http://www.canada.com/edmontonjournal/news/story.html?id=21c71a18-68e6-41da-82d9-4266f10b0ce1&k=12083 to http://www.canada.com/edmontonjournal/news/story.html?id=21c71a18-68e6-41da-82d9-4266f10b0ce1&k=12083

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:48, 30 January 2018 (UTC)