Talk:Doug Holyday

This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.

If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.

This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Biography: Politics and Government

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
	This article is supported by the politics and government work group (assessed as Low-importance).

Canada: Toronto / Politics Mid‑importance

	Canada portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Canada, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Canada on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CanadaWikipedia:WikiProject CanadaTemplate:WikiProject CanadaCanada-related articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Toronto (assessed as High-importance).
	This article is supported by WikiProject Political parties and politicians in Canada.
	This article has been automatically rated by a bot or other tool because one or more other projects use this class. Please ensure the assessment is correct before removing the `\|auto=` parameter.

Politics Low‑importance

	Politics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

from Vfd[edit]

On 18 Feb 2005, this article was nominated for deletion. The result was keep. See Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Doug Holyday for a record of the discussion.

NOW arrticle[edit]

FYI, the statement about Holyday being nominated as Toronto's worst councillor is tied to the previous sentences. Therefore it doesn't stand on its own but provides context for Holyday's 'voting record'. While the article doesn't specifically call him 'Toronto's worst councillor' it does put him at the top of a top ten list of the worst councillors and labels him as 'Public Enenmy Number One'. IMO that's enough to label him as the worst councillor. EncyclopediaUpdaticus (talk) 23:50, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That is a matter of opinion from a tabloid, this is not like the academic ranking of Historical rankings of United States Presidents. GoldDragon (talk) 01:59, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct to note that Now Magazine's ranking of the 10 Worst Councillors in Toronto is not an academic listing. This, however, is quite beside the point. It's a journalistic ranking, and is suitable for inclusion in the article accordingly. CJCurrie (talk) 04:00, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A tabloid ranking is not suitable for inclusion, period. GoldDragon (talk) 16:04, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

NOW Magazine is hardly a tabloid. EncyclopediaUpdaticus (talk) 16:41, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with GoldDragon so since this is a BLP and we have no consensus for it to remain in I will remove it for the time being. Even if it were to be in the article, since it does not specifically say he's the worst then we certainly should not be synthesizing that conclusion. NOW's claim is really not a notable assessment, more like a smear, it seems to me. May122013 (talk) 04:24, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The NOW claim does seem a bit harsh. It's also 10 years old. I agree it should be removed. Richard Apple (talk) 04:40, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Remove photo[edit]

Out of fairness, the photo on this article should be removed. It shows Doug Holyday with Rob Ford, who has received significant negative press over the past year. Again, this is strictly out of fairness to Holyday. Magnolia677 (talk) 05:44, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Doug Holyday. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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: 18 January 2022).

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) 04:56, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]