Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Melissa Guille

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. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:48, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Melissa Guille

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

Melissa Guille is barely notable. The article is a stub. None of the actions listed are notable and do little more than character assassination. There was a large block of outdated information about an Civil/Administrative proceeding under a law that has been deleted by Canadian Parliament as of Summer 2013. Most links to the article are dead. There is no mention of any actions past 2004. Furthermore, the article refers to her as a "White Supremacist" which is a serious accusation considering there was never any information to suggest any inclination of violence, derogatory attacks on other cultures, etc. WikiErrorCorrection (talk) 00:46, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There is also a reference to founding a group (which was little more than a website). The Group itself is not notable either WikiErrorCorrection (talk) 01:51, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's assumed that a nomination is a vote for deletion, a second delete vote would not be counted and might be seen as confusing the process. Use "Comment" when leaving a non-vote. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 06:23, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 05:04, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 05:04, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. This is what the article looked like before recent deletions by the nom and IPs. This older revision might contain additional information and/or sources that could be used to weigh notability. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 06:21, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you Green Cardamom. All external links are broken and were only mentioning the subject in passing. The last paragraph was entirely outdated. The outcome of the case was trivial with no fine issued [1] WikiErrorCorrection (talk) 10:45, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - With regards to broken links, WP:DEADLINK applies - links do not need to be "live". - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:56, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nothing in the article demonstrates this person is notable. She has not done anything notable. This is not "Right Wing Watch wiki" and we do not create articles with the sole purpose of tracking alleged hate crimes by others. This article has major BLP problems, and when the person is so unnotable engaging in any discussion of such accusations is questionable. However, mainly she is just not notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:20, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No evidence that the subject meets the notability criteria PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 01:52, 26 October 2013 (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.