Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jo-Ann Roberts (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 no consensus. Seems like this discussion's main issue is whether a) the topic meets GNG or b) whether being interim party leader is sufficient to satisfy WP:NPOL criteria. OK, there is also a secondary discussion on whether we should follow the notability rules "off a cliff" to quote one of the participants there but it doesn't seem like it is conclusive. Plus a lot of mentions of precedents and other articles (some of them in that secondary discussion) but as far as I know we don't use other AFDs as precedent.

On the GNG question, the discussion is somewhat inconclusive as we have several assertions in either direction but apparently no specific sources cited as proof that GNG is met. Regarding the NPOL question (and the more general "is she notable by virtue of being a party leader") it seems like most people here endorse the claim that NPOL is met but the counterargument offered by Bearcat that being an interim leader might not satisfy WP:NPOL criteria carries weight.

On balance, it seems like this has no consensus for plain deletion or keeping mainly due to the uncertain status wrt. meeting GNG criteria. It's perhaps closer to a delete than a keep due to the aforementioned lack of proof but here I don't see a clear cut enough consensus to warrant deletion. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:27, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jo-Ann Roberts

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

As written, appears to fail WP:GNG. No evidence of significant press coverage—that is, coverage outside of her being appointed as interim leader of the Green Party of Canada. A detailed biographical account of her life, print or digital, would certainly count as one WP:SIGCOV WP:RS, if one exists. Even then, multiple reliable sources are needed (minimum two; but WP:THREE is a better minimum). She has been an unsuccessful candidate for public office and is likely an otherwise non-notable radio personality. This seems like a case of WP:TOOSOON and I note that the next day after this article's creation, dutiful admin Barkeep49 tagged the "Biography" section with WP:ADVERT.

At the same time, WP:POLOUTCOMES is quite relevant here in that, when serving in an interim role, civil servants who may be called upon to act as a minister are generally regarded as not-notable. Note, too, Jo-Ann Roberts was likely named to this interim party administrative leadership role in order to try and boost her public persona. Wikipedia should not participate in this puffery. Doug Mehus (talk) 02:24, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Doug Mehus (talk) 02:24, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Doug Mehus (talk) 02:24, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Doug Mehus (talk) 02:24, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Friendly tags to previous AfD nom participants: Bearcat, Rusf10, and Johnpacklambert. --Doug Mehus (talk) 02:27, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Generally in Canada political party leaders ARE NOTABLE. Also per WP:NPOL - "Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage." Me-123567-Me (talk) 02:34, 6 November 2019 (UTC) Edit - Also per WP:POLOUTCOMES - "Leaders of registered political parties at the national level are sometimes considered notable despite their party's lack of electoral success. Leaders of major sub-national (state, province, prefecture, etc.) level are usually deleted unless notability can be demonstrated for other reasons." Me-123567-Me (talk) 17:37, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Disagree, respectfully, with Me-123567-Me's assertion and provided rationale. In this case, Jo-Ann Roberts is not the leader of a parliamentary party in the House of Commons. Elizabeth May is still very much the leader of the Green Party of Canada's parliamentary caucus/wing. She is, for all sakes and purposes, the de facto public face of the party. Jo-Ann Roberts, by contrast, aside from being only interim leader, is just the interim leader of the political party for the purposes of issuing party statements, news releases, and fundraising. Respectfully, if she is kept on this basis, then we are legitimizing making political party leaders of the Rhinoceros or Libertarian parties even though they do not hold seats in Parliament. Moreover, given how easy it is to start a political party, this could be a back-door way for people to getting a Wikipedia article. Doug Mehus (talk) 02:54, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Me-123567-Me, moreover, you noted "local political figures," which I'm not sure applies in this context. Nevertheless, you've not shown where she has been the subject of significant coverage beyond either this single event or her unsuccessful election campaigns. Further, Bearcat even noted at first nomination deletion discussion that significant coverage was not met and the article closed as delete. There's no indication this has otherwise changed. Doug Mehus (talk) 02:59, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dmehus, I was patrolling based on articles that had previously deleted so I was most definitely aware of the earlier AfDs but the events since the last AfD suggested notability for me. But before diving to deeply into that I'm curious if you have sources to back up your statement that she was named interim party leader in order to boost her public persona. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 03:03, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Barkeep49, Thanks for the reply. To answer your question, after having watched for years of the way in which the Green Party of Canada operates with respect to their deputy leaders and, indeed, even their former party leaders who never held a seat, they often select these positions in an attempt to build notoriety. I thank Me-123567-Me for noting Tim Moen has an article, but that doesn't necessarily mean he's notable. If we're going to make all party leaders notable because they led a party, then well, I can see a potential back-door way of getting a Wikipedia article here (that is, all I'd need to do is run for the Libertarian Party of Canada or similar, put out a press release, and get a few media organizations to cover my winning the leadership?). I should note that I support, and have voted for, the Green Party of Canada in the past, and generally like what they're doing, but I have to set my biases at the door in these AfD discussions. Doug Mehus (talk) 03:15, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

She doesn't have to be the parliamentary leader. That was never the level required for an article. We have articles on EVERY previous GPC leader even the previous interim leader. Heck, we have an article on the Libertarian leader (Tim Moen) who doesn't even have a seat. Me-123567-Me (talk) 03:05, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – the leader of a national political party is obviously notable. Coverage in the media will continue to improve, as will our article. – bradv🍁 03:18, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Bradv, So, for clarity, are you saying that any national political party leader, including those which are interim leaders which have not been selected by the party membership and which have not won elected office, are notable? In other words, I could run for, and win, the leadership of a similar minor national political party and be qualified for having an article? Doug Mehus (talk) 03:21, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
If you become leader of the Green Party I'll write an article about you. – bradv🍁 03:23, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Bradv, LOL, but for clarity, there's nothing special about the Green Party of Canada from, say, the Libertarian Party of Canada, right? In any case, I'll be sure and add this to my "bucket list." Doug Mehus (talk) 03:31, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, there is a huge difference in the amount of coverage between the two. The Green Party has seats in parliament, takes part in nationally-televised debates, and is a major part of the political landscape in Canada. The Libertarian Party is not. – bradv🍁 03:33, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Bradv, Yes, I know that, but Jo-Ann Roberts is interim leader—that is, she was selected by the party's board of directors for a period of not more than one year. She has never held elected office. Thus, I don't see how she meets the requirement for being a notable politician. As Me-123567-Me pointed out, Tim Moen has an article, but he has never held elected office. We shouldn't start making exceptions for one party over another; either Jo-Ann Roberts has a seat in Parliament or she doesn't. So, on that basis, in your view, would you say Tim Moen is notable? Doug Mehus (talk) 03:38, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
As leader of a major Canadian party - one for which we have articles on previous interim leaders (see Chris Bradshaw). As WP:OTHERSTUFF notes In consideration of precedent and consistency, though, identifying articles of the same nature that have been established and continue to exist on Wikipedia may provide extremely important insight into the general concept of notability, levels of notability (what's notable: international, national, regional, state, provincial?), and whether or not a level and type of article should be on Wikipedia.. She has already received international coverage (see the BBC). At most I could get behind draftify as we wait for better sources but ultimately I think she's likely notable which is why I marked her article as reviewed while patrolling. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 04:14, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Barkeep49, I wouldn't be opposed to a Draftify either. It's possible she may well become a Member of Parliament for Victoria on the third (or fourth) attempt, but not yet. Also, the trouble I have with WP:OTHERSTUFF is some articles may have flown under the radar with respect to notability and are, in fact, not necessarily notable. Similarly, articles that had notionally "passed" AfD as "keep" may have done so on low turnout or when regular Wikipedia editors were otherwise on vacation.

The only reason she received a passing mention in the BBC re: her appointment as interim leader. If coverage continues, and she continues to receive biographical-length profiles, books, and the like, then fine, she may be notable without having being elected. I just think this is a case of WP:TOOSOON.

It seems to me some editors feel like it's more important to have a linked article for the "predecessor" and "successor" links in the political office template footers; I think that's the wrong approach. Doug Mehus (talk) 16:25, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
PRECEDENT -

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. feminist (talk) 04:43, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Right now this is News, so WP:NOTNEWS and WP:TOOSOON applies. She is an intern leader, and all we have is a brief bit of news coverage about that. Likely as she goes on she'll continue to get news as they go and become notable. But we don't have a crystal ball. We don't know how long she'll be leader, or if anything she does will be notable. Harizotoh9 (talk) 06:36, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Seriously? In this encyclopaedia where we decide we need to keep the list of Crayola crayon colours, the article about a bloke with an amazingly long name, the article about which way round to hang your toilet paper, and the article about the precognitive octopus, we're going to delete the biography of the deputy leader/interim leader of a major political party in Canada? Wikipedia is utterly ridiculous sometimes.—S Marshall T/C 12:05, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
S Marshall, Notwithstanding the article about the "bloke" with a really long name, which I agree with you probably should not be included here, in this case Jo-Ann Roberts is just a placeholder administrative leader—I would also point out that her article was rightly deleted when she was Deputy Leader of the Green Party of Canada due to their being a lack of significant coverage. It's a similar story here; there just isn't significant, reliable, independent sources for either her radio career or her administrative political role as the Greens' interim leader. We wouldn't necessarily make a City Councillor notable who served as Acting Mayor of a city following the Mayor's resignation nor would we make a Deputy Minister (civil servant) notable who served as Acting Minister for a short term. Doug Mehus (talk) 16:19, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I certainly agree that you have correctly expressed our rules on notability. To delete this article now would be to follow the rules off a cliff.—S Marshall T/C 17:22, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
S Marshall, thanks and thanks for your reply. Maybe we're in need of a major cleanup with respect to non-notable party leaders (note this does not mean parliamentary leaders or leaders having also concurrently held elected office)? Note that Bearcat reminds us of Wikipedia's rules on notability (a) being tightened up a few years ago such that (b) that political party leaders are not entitled to articles unless they pass one of those two "filters"—that is, they were notable prior to their appointment to the party executive board or they were the subject of significant, independent, and reliable coverage. Perhaps Jo-Ann Roberts is just the "tip of the iceberg"? If we don't undertake some sort of larger scale AfD political party leader cleanup process, we may end up further drowning ourselves in the proliferation of otherwise non-notable persons who are permitted to have articles by virtue of their having leading a national party's executive board? Doug Mehus (talk) 17:29, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I'd agree that that's one of the many cleanups we need to carry out in due course. Personally, I'm still focused on the cleanup of the >3,500 articles that came up in 2016 in WP:AN/CXT, or at least getting the biographies of living people cleaned up. In this encyclopaedia where we have articles about baseball teams' mascots, Barbie's careers, separate articles about individual episodes of 1960s TV shows, extremely minor Marvel/DC fictional characters, American settlements with a population of 63, and 8.5k words on sexuality in Star Trek, we've somehow decided to spend our volunteering time talking about deleting an article about the deputy/interim leader of an important political party in a major nation. I couldn't explain why, to a non-Wikipedian, without making our whole culture sound badly thought out. Could you?—S Marshall T/C 18:02, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
S Marshall, True, and no, I probably could not explain how some companies are named with parenthetical qualifiers when there's a clear primary topic. Of course, I could not also explain why we even have policies like WP:PRIMARY when there's nothing inherently wrong with parenthetical qualifiers other than for those intent on having companies' Wikipedia article names match up with the public name from the company's website.

It's worth stressing that the de facto "leader" of the Green Party of Canada (an example of where WP:COMMONNAME takes precedence over WP:COMMONSENSE that would dictate using WP:OFFICIALNAME) is still, very much, Elizabeth May. Jo-Ann Roberts is not your typical interim leader in that she will not likely be conducting the day-to-day press scrums; instead, she will likely be singularly focused on the party's administrative structure, fundraising, the coming leadership convention, and the like. Doug Mehus (talk) 18:25, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. While I don't see how her political career meets WP:NPOL yet, I think that the position she has been appointed to, in combination with her journalism career and the reliable sources that have been referenced gets her up to notability standards. However, @Kermick180: the Biography section of the article as of this moment is a straight copy-and-paste from her Green Party profile and has to be rewritten or deleted completely, ASAP. PK T(alk) 13:32, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
PKT, Wow, good point on the biography. It was a blatant cut-and-paste insertion. Not even a close paraphrasing. I tagged that section with a copyvio tag for a copyvio clerk to resolve and remove. Doug Mehus (talk) 16:34, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the party, without prejudice against recreation in the future if and when her coverage improves. It is not true that all political party leaders in Canadian politics are automatically handed a notability freebie just for existing as leaders. Rather, political party leaders are permitted articles in one of two specific instances: either (a) they already hold an inherently notable WP:NPOL-passing role, such as actually being a member of the party's legislative caucus, alongside their leadership of the party, or (b) it is possible to write and reliably source a substantial article that says significantly more about the person than just the mere fact that they led a political party. If the article is not actually able to say more than their name being mentioned in the party's article already does, because the coverage of their leadership is that limited, then a standalone BLP is not appropriate.
And Me-1234567-Me's "precedent" list above is not binding, either, as those are all old discussions that were conducted before our notability standards for politicians were tightened up, and the number of political party leaders that we have deleted for not having enough coverage to properly support a standalone BLP vastly exceeds just six.
If her coverage improves between now and the convention, then by all means a separate article about her can be created when that happens — but as of today, a brief 24-hour blip of coverage verifying the fact that she was named interim leader of the party, while not being about her in any depth, is not in and of itself enough — being a party leader is not an instant guarantee of "inherent" notability if the coverage isn't good enough to get her over WP:GNG. Bearcat (talk) 15:06, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Wikipedia has thousands of articles that are completely useless. Whenever a US president is elected we have pages of text about those who "might" be nominated to cabinet but never are (80% of this article is speculative garbage). We have pages about people who "might" run for president but never get close (seriously, the only notable thing on this section is that they didn't do something that nobody was expecting them to do). So my question is, why can't someone who is the de jure leader of a political party with 3 seats in the house of commons not get to keep their article? The Green Party has had representation for almost a decade and has grown even more in certain provinces, like BC and PEI. If we applied this level of scrutiny to all sections of every article ever written we would delete 2/3 of the content on Wikipedia. -- Kndimov (talk) 18:21, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Kndimov, But the problem is nothing has functionally changed from her non-notable Deputy Leader role. Jo-Ann Roberts is party leader in name and title only. Functionally, the leader is still the party's parliamentary leader Elizabeth May, who will likely also double as party house leader given their small caucus and who will likely conduct daily press scrums and all political activities. Jo-Ann Roberts, by contrast, is like an administrative bureaucrat, leading the party's bureaucratic organization, leading fundraising efforts, and issuing party communiqués that, in turn, help to drive fundraising. The examples you cite may or may not be notable, but they are not standalone articles. Thus, I agree with the suggestions to either draftify or redirect this article. Doug Mehus (talk) 18:31, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kndimov, To your later point, I don't think it's two-thirds, but at least half, by my rough estimates, of Wikipedia articles fail WP:Notability. Would deleting so much content be a bad thing? Instead, we could focus on improving, sourcing, splitting off where necessary, etc. articles that are notable. I'd add that Everipedia exists an inclusionist venue for everything—corporate spam and all. Doug Mehus (talk) 18:35, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for above reasons. She is now the leader of a federal party which holds seats in the House of Commons and she has a ton of independent reliable sources available. Handoto (talk) 21:26, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Handoto, But Elizabeth May is still parliamentary leader and house leader. IDK, but I would argue her role is politically akin to that of a bureaucrat (no disrespect to bureaucrats). Also, those reliable sources you quote are based off of a single event and which also fail significant coverage—that is, they're merely passing or routine mentions of her being selected by the party brass/executive board as interim leader. Doug Mehus (talk) 21:30, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Dmehus, she is still a leader of a successful federal party, even with May being the house leader. For sources, you'd have to look elsewhere as well. She received some coverage when she was a journalist at the CBC and again when she was appointed and during her time as the deputy leader of the party. To me, there is enough out there to pass WP:NPOL or at the very least, definitely enough for WP:GNG, even when looking at WP:NOTNEWS. Handoto (talk) 21:38, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Handoto, But coverage about her? It has to be more than mere mentions of her role as a journalist. Articles she wrote as a journalist do not count. Also, Elizabeth May is more than just a House Leader; she is the Leader of the party in Parliament. She may well also be House Leader, a legislative deputy to the parliamentary caucus leader, but is definitely more than House Leader. Is no one^[1] reading Bearcat's sensible reply here!?

References

^ Notwithstanding S Marshall, who acknowledges she may or may not be notable, but who favours keep because to delete would be following WP "rules off a cliff."

Doug Mehus (talk) 21:52, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It is following the rules off a cliff. I've just participated in an AfD about a bloke who's notable for not finishing a marathon at the 1924 Olympics (landslide "Keep! Passes WP:NOLY!"). If Ms Roberts had competed in an international football match for 8 minutes, she'd definitely have an article. But as all she's managed to accomplish in her life is the mere leadership of the Green Party of Canada, we're applying a different SNG which is less inclusionist. We need to temper the strict application of these rules with a bit of editorial judgment if our decisions on Wikipedia are ever going to make any sense.—S Marshall T/C 10:48, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
S Marshall, Ah, thank you for illuminating your thought process behind that. To be clear, I wasn't trying to challenge your assertion—I just wanted to make sure I was not lumping you in with my comment that some editors seem to be ignoring Bearcat's thoughtful rationale for redirecting to the Green Party of Canada above.

To your example, I don't know the rules on the Olympics, but to me, one doesn't need to finish a competition. They could be signed up to participate on the Olympic team and then back out at the opening ceremonies and still be notable.

Anyway, that's what I love about Wikipedia—two administrators (you and Bearcat) can disagree on a specific issue or discussion. That is, it is not just the editors who disagree; administrators can do so as well. I wonder, procedurally, at closing, do opinions expressed by administrators (provided they cited appropriate policies) carry more weight in determining consensus than the cited opinions by editors (again, provided they too cited appropriate policies and evidence)

Speaking of which, I meant to thank you for your use of WP:COMMONSENSE in allowing me to withdraw a deletion review I'd submitted for First Nations Bank of Canada even though, policy-wise, there was not such a mechanism at deletion review. There is that method at AfD, but not the former. So, I thank you and RoySmith for exercising common sense there. Doug Mehus (talk) 15:30, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, the wisdom of Solomon isn't one of the tools administrators get when they pass RfA. Which, incidentally, I haven't; like any other experienced editor, I'm permitted to close a range of discussions on Wikipedia, which is fine as long as my closures are unproblematic. If I started to get it wrong I'd lose discussion-closing privileges rather quickly! When an administrator comments on a discussion they are commenting in their editorial capacity rather than their administrative one, and their remarks get no additional weight. They aren't permitted to close a discussion in which they have commented as an editor.—S Marshall T/C 18:04, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

S Marshall, You're not an administrator? Wow. Surprising. If I nominated you for adminship, would you accept? Cool, unindent tag. I will remember that one. ;)Doug Mehus (talk) 18:10, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If your intent was to compliment me, then thank you. I would rather not undergo the ritual hazing of RFA in its present form.—S Marshall T/C 18:15, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

S Marshall, LOL, true. Yes, it was meant as a compliment, but I tend to agree with you. Editors ask far too many, overly detailed questions at RfA—which is, in part, why I don't participate in that venue. They're also far too picky. To me, what makes a good admin is owning up to mistakes. Admins are not infallible so I don't mind if an admin makes mistakes in closures, so long as they own up to it. I wish more editors would realize that. Really, the only reason I'd want to see admin privileges revoked is for blatant misuse of power—that is, multiple instances of blocking people in contravention of policy or going against/completely misreading consensus.Doug Mehus (talk) 18:21, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The number of independent coverage increased since the AFD started. --Enos733 (talk) 16:37, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep nom says "As written, appears to fail WP:GNG." The state of the article doesn't have any impact on notability, such as if it doesn't list enough sources or isn't written in a certain way. There are a ton of independent sources available and this easily passes WP:GNG. 159.33.10.155 (talk) 20:43, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm saying, as written, it fails. However, more importantly, there is not sufficient sources which meet WP:SIGCOV and the biographical equivalent of WP:CORPDEPTH on which to write more than a perpetual stub-class article. See administrator Bearcat's well articulated comment above. With respect, you can't just say "strong keep" and not provide the sourcing to back it up. Supposedly, we base consensus on the strength of the arguments, not the number of !votes as this is supposedly not a vote. Moreover, can you point me to the consensus decision that says we keep minor political party leaders who have never held elected office but who otherwise fail WP:NBIO or WP:GNG!?Doug Mehus (talk) 23:37, 9 November 2019 (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.

[1] Notwithstanding S Marshall, who acknowledges she may or may not be notable, but who favours keep because to delete would be following WP "rules off a cliff."

[1]