Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/For the Love of Meghan (2nd nomination)

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. Despite a few brief mentions in local news and The Star, the article is heavily promotional and a memorial. One ref even cites Wikipedia. The article could be improved by removing all sections but the lead and "Worldwide charitable services" and deletion is not for articles that can be fixed. However, I think the argument has been sufficiently made that this article, while meeting the letter of WP:GNG, does not meet the spirit of our policy. The coverage received is typical of coverage you'd expect for an "aww that's cute" sort of thing where a husband is doing charity in the name of his deceased wife. I think it's great, but it doesn't belong on Wikipedia. v/r - T P 14:38, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For the Love of Meghan

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This one is kind of odd. For starters, a page with this name was deleted last year following an AfD (here). The current article is better; whether it's different enough that this is not is a G4 speedy I'm not sure (this was the version deleted), but it's re-existed for a while, various editors have worked on it, there're more sources, and the original AfD was not heavily populated, so I don't know as it's a speedy.

But, hmmm. There are refs, mostly unreliable or unnotable, but here's a Toronto Star feature article for instance, and the Star is very notable. So it meets the WP:GNG. But GNG or no, I don't see this as notable, really.

[On consideration redacted a section here (after the first editor had commented) about the content. I'll just say say WP:NOTMEMORIAL, WP:PROMOTION, and read the article yourself and draw your own conclusions.]

Anyway, not notable, refs notwithstanding. If it is notable, at any rate should be moved to Adam Warner as, for good or ill, the article is about him and his activities going forward in life. Herostratus (talk) 17:22, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:54, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, has significant coverage [1] [2]. "GNG or no, I don't see this as notable" is an WP:IDONTLIKEIT argument. Alessandra Napolitano (talk) 18:11, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't like it, but that aside, we're not required by GNG to host a WP:PROMOTION just because there's an article in the Toronto Star and the Sarnia Observer. Good for him, but is the rule "You manage to get yourself an article in the Star, you're golden for a Wikipedia article as a free bonus? Herostratus (talk) 04:24, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as subject is the focus of significant coverage in reliable third-party sources (including MTV News and the CBC) and crosses the verifiability and notability thresholds. Notability is not a competition. - Dravecky (talk) 08:39, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:40, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - This is an odd AfD... partly because at least one of the sources being used to justify its inclusion CITES this very wikipedia article (MTV Canada news that reads like a blog). xkcd is a genius. Digressing... most of the sources don't meet our WP:RS criteria or indicate notability. For instance, funeral home and memorial listings are not indications of notability. Some others are primary sources to the site itself, or their facebook page. Then there's a few blog posts on there. The ones that do meet WP:RS from my brief review are: Alan Colmes interview, CBC interview (the link doesn't seem to be of that video so I can't asses how notable it is), The Observer article, this, and then of course The Star. The interviews are technically primary sources, and some of the newspapers seem like local newspaper stories. However, The Star article is large and has a wide distribution. I think that pushes it into notable territory. I agree with Herostratus' general statement though that any mention isn't enough. There are way too many instances where we have someone who appeared in a hometown paper article and that gets touted as sufficient to be notable. I don't buy that. But here it's a major paper with large coverage and a few other appearances. I think it's borderline but probably just enough. Shadowjams (talk) 01:16, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There just isn't enough coverage in WP:RS to justify a keep. Sure, there's mention in The Star - but that's all it is. A mention. There's nothing about this to bring it up to WP's standards of notability. Lithorien (talk) 01:54, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Yeah, it passes WP:GNG according to the letter, but not the spirit - a couple of cute human-interest stories in local papers just don't constitute "multiple" in any encyclopedically meaningful way. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 02:36, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Lithorien and Roscelese. Not enough WP:RS. --Legis (talk - contribs) 10:02, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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.