Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anna Gainey
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Sandstein 17:20, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
- Anna Gainey (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Poorly referenced WP:BLP of a person notable primarily as the organizational president, but not the public leader, of a political party. This is a role that could potentially get her into Wikipedia if she could be sourced over WP:GNG for it, but not one that hands her an automatic inclusion freebie just for existing if the sourcing isn't up to snuff -- but there's only one reference being cited here, which is a start toward getting her over GNG but is not enough to carry her over the finish line all by itself. If a person doesn't have an automatic pass of any SNG (e.g. by actually serving in the House of Commons as an actual elected MP), then they need considerably more than just one source to pass the "notable because media coverage exists" test. So no prejudice against recreation in the future if somebody can do better than this, but nothing here is good enough as written to get her in the door. Bearcat (talk) 00:37, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 00:37, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 00:37, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
Oppose Being the President of the Liberal Party of Canada is one of those slam-dunk automatic articles (every single one has an article, see Category:Presidents of the Liberal Party of Canada). The lack of notability argument does not really hold any weight when every single Yukon backbench MLA has an article. The article needs expanding, not deleting. --IDW5605 (talk) 00:45, 9 May 2018 (UTC)struck per WP:SOCKSTRIKE power~enwiki (π, ν) 03:32, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
- No, being the president of a political party is not a slam-dunk automatic article. It gets her an article if enough sources can be found to get her over GNG for it, and does not get her an article if the sourceability is not adequate. Presidents of political parties are judged by the same inclusion standards as presidents of any other type of organization — they do not have legislative authority to vote on the passage of laws, so their notability is not measured against the notability standard for legislators: it is measured against the notability standard for presidents of organizations, which is GNG or bust. (And incidentally, it's actually GNG or bust for legislators, too: the difference is that legislators always pass GNG because they always get covered by the media — yes, even backbench MLAs in Yukon get coverage, because Yukon really does have actual media that actually cover territorial politics, just like everywhere else does. But party presidents sometimes get enough coverage to clear GNG, and sometimes don't get enough coverage to clear GNG — and it's the coverage they did or didn't get for doing the job, not any sort of "slam-dunk automatic article" privilege, that determines whether or not an article gets to happen.) Bearcat (talk) 03:18, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
- Moose Jaw, which is the same size as Yukon also has media, but not even their mayor as an article. Do we give special privileges to territorial politicians over municipal politicians, even if the municipal politicians represent more people and recieve media coverage? Genuine inquriry.
- Are there not cases where the organization is important enough that the president automatically becomes worthy of an article? If you became the President and CEO of Apple, wouldn't that automatically guarantee you a WP article because of the importance of the position itself? --IDW5605 (talk) 05:59, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
- Actually, the current mayor of Moose Jaw (Fraser Tolmie) does have an article. For some reason it hadn't actually been linked to from Moose Jaw's article until I did so just now, and it isn't properly sourced as getting him over GNG either and thus may also be vulnerable to deletion, but we do have one. And no, there are no cases where an organization is so important that WP:GNG is suspended for a biography of its president or CEO just because that person exists — in all likelihood, a new president or CEO of Apple would get the media coverage needed to clear GNG, so there wouldn't be a problem. But in the event that he or she didn't, the role is not so "inherently" important that the "need" for Wikipedia to have an article about him or her would override the inability to source it properly. Even a president of the United States would not qualify to have a Wikipedia article if they somehow managed to hold the role without generating any media coverage about their presidency. Which is not to say that we're likely to ever actually be in a situation where a US president actually has that problem, admittedly, but the principle is still the same: the notability test is not what role a person held, but how much media coverage they did or didn't get for holding the role. Bearcat (talk) 16:05, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
- No, being the president of a political party is not a slam-dunk automatic article. It gets her an article if enough sources can be found to get her over GNG for it, and does not get her an article if the sourceability is not adequate. Presidents of political parties are judged by the same inclusion standards as presidents of any other type of organization — they do not have legislative authority to vote on the passage of laws, so their notability is not measured against the notability standard for legislators: it is measured against the notability standard for presidents of organizations, which is GNG or bust. (And incidentally, it's actually GNG or bust for legislators, too: the difference is that legislators always pass GNG because they always get covered by the media — yes, even backbench MLAs in Yukon get coverage, because Yukon really does have actual media that actually cover territorial politics, just like everywhere else does. But party presidents sometimes get enough coverage to clear GNG, and sometimes don't get enough coverage to clear GNG — and it's the coverage they did or didn't get for doing the job, not any sort of "slam-dunk automatic article" privilege, that determines whether or not an article gets to happen.) Bearcat (talk) 03:18, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
- Delete She's not actually a politician but rather the head of an organisation: the only coverage I found on her was a result of her election, and even then was only a few articles. Not enough to get past WP:GNG. SportingFlyer talk 21:37, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
- Delete per Bearcat; possibly G5 due to socking by the page creator. power~enwiki (π, ν) 03:32, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:35, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.