Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sarah Irving

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 keep. Spartaz ^Humbug! 05:59, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sarah Irving[edit]

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

Not notable person. Being rich != notability. Few sources other than ones that mention her position and wealth. _{Vermont | reply here} 00:15, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:20, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:20, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:20, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment : Including this information here as I included it when Vermont tagged initially tagged it for speedy delete — Reasons why I believe individual is notable, and therefore should not be deleted:

Only member of the Irving family on the C-Suite of Irving Oil — likely to succeed ownership of the company,
Heir to the Irving fortune (net worth of $15.5 billion USD — 2nd richest family in Canada, daughter to 233rd richest person in the world)
Other family members all have wiki pages (K. C. Irving, Arthur Irving, John E. Irving, James K. Irving)
Multiple board positions on other organizations (Dartmouth College fund, Rothesay Netherwood School, etc.)
Made $80 million donation to Dartmouth College for the Irving Institute (http://irving.dartmouth.edu/)
Individual has been targeted by Dartmouth alumni in arguments over the controversial donations made by the Irving conglomerate
Listed as 21st most powerful Canadian business people

Where was she listed as the 21st most powerful? Also, WP:INHERITED. _{Vermont | reply here} 16:22, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That would be here. Prince of Thieves (talk) 17:03, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank's for the link. _{Vermont | reply here} 18:58, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think this person is relevant enough to justify an article. I will say though that this is only because of her C-Suite position in Irving Oil and the media coverage related to it. The 21st most powerful listing is tangential since that is only one of many different lists of the most powerful women, Canadians and business people, however there is no doubt that in this instance, (money = notability) is a true equation. And I think it is always so to some extent, I challenge you to find a biography of someone that had no money here, there are very very few. Prince of Thieves (talk) 22:00, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Very reluctant keep, ^{Vermont asked for my opinion} One of the few cases I think we ought to bend WP:GNG: She's not (yet) notable in her own right, but if, say, you're googling around looking for information on the future of Irving Oil (not infeasible) this article would probably be pretty useful to you, and so IMO it should stick around. -- Thanks, Alfie. ^{talk to me | contribs} 23:22, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

little note: I asked on IRC for alfie's thoughts. I did not ask alfie to comment here, per WP:CANVASSING. _{Vermont | reply here} 23:24, 22 February 2018 (UTC) [reply]

Drop me right in it, why don't you ;) but yes this is true, I just decided to put my thoughts here becuase they're useful maybe -- Thanks, Alfie. ^{talk to me | contribs} 23:26, 22 February 2018 (UTC) [reply]

Delete, without prejudice against recreation if and when she does succeed to the head of the company. We don't hold WP:GNG in abeyance just because there's a possibility that a stronger claim of notability might emerge in the future, per WP:NOTCRYSTAL — we wait until a stronger notability claim has emerged, and then create the article accordingly. Bearcat (talk) 21:25, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J04n(talk page) 16:07, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The nomination doesn't seem to make much sense as it discounts the sources which explain her significance. And where's the consideration of alternatives to deletion? Our editing policy applies. Andrew D. (talk) 19:10, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (withdraw) I'm withdrawing my nomination of this article. When I nom'd it, it was a short, 1-source article that didn't return much on the google search I did. It's now much more populated with information, and although it's notability can be contested, I think it should be kept. _{Vermont | reply here} 22:29, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'm not sure what the article looked like at nomination, but the current sourcing of the article passes WP:GNG and establishes notability. Lonehexagon (talk) 21:56, 4 March 2018 (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.