Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Annette Groves

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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. The sources are insufficient and mostly local. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:28, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Annette Groves[edit]

Annette Groves (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable politician lacking GHits and GNEWS of substance. Appears to fail WP:BIO and WP:POLITICIAN. Page created by election committee per [1]. ttonyb (talk) 05:12, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. This is an article being used to promote a political campaign, which is a violation of policy, requiring that articles are not to be used as a means of promotion. Cindamuse (talk) 15:46, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete - The author more or less admits that he/she is creating the Annette Groves because 'The Annette Groves election team is attempting to create her wiki page in order to show the very important work the Annette has done over the last decade.' The article fails on WP:COI and WP:SOAP.--Kudpung (talk) 16:48, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: Regardless of the author's motivations, we are debating whether the article meets the criteria, not why it was written. The author's motivations are not, in my opinion, germane to the discussion. What is germane is the test for notability, and as noted below, issues of offending content may be addressed by editing, if the subject merits notability. That's a content issue, not an inclusion/exclusion issue. One may posit that any article about a politician, citing published sources, may appear promotional, as that's what politicians do... promote themselves. That promotion is often reported by "reliable secondary sources" and I don't believe that invalidates the reporting, just because a politician made public comment fully aware of the "spin" that would be placed on it by the media. Media reporting is not infallible and seldom fully transparent, but it is what it is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.179.39.241 (talk) 15:35, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: WP:COI and WP:SOAP are not on the list of reasons for deletion (other than for certain kinds of speedy deletion not applicable here). Edits violating COI and SOAP may offend our community's sensibilities but if the topic's notable, we clean them up -- we don't delete. --A. B. (talk • contribs) 19:58, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. While I agree that WP:COI is not appropriate to deletion, the criteria clearly covers WP:SPAM, WP:SOAP, advertising, and promotional material. Wikipedia policy states that articles of a promotional nature are inappropriate. Accordingly, this article should be deleted. Cindamuse (talk) 21:15, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Advertising or other spam without relevant content (but not an article about an advertising-related subject)"
But this same section also says this is
  • "subject to the condition that improvement or deletion of an offending section, if practical, is preferable to deletion of an entire page".
We do make an exception for totally blatant, useless spam articles; see Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion#G11
  • ("Pages that are exclusively promotional, and would need to be fundamentally rewritten to become encyclopedic.").
So when possible, we're supposed to clean up rather than delete anything with potential to be an encyclopaedia article. 90+% of the time, AfD discussions therefore turn on the subject of notability notwithstanding the motivation of the article's creator.--A. B. (talk • contribs) 21:25, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question - That's an interesting question - weighing the relative notability. As the creator of the page appears to have indicated, this is a response to the inclusion of an article on another politician in the same municipality. While one can't say "this one validates that one" there has to be some relative balance with reference to their municipal positions. Is being an incumbent mayor different than being an incumbent regional council member? Referentially, both can be backed up as both their position and their major points and accomplishments would be a matter of public record (ie. secondary sources), would they not? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.171.97.182 (talk) 17:50, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – Each article needs to stand on its own merits. The existence of an article does not validate any other article. See WP:WAX for a more detailed discussion. This discussion is not about comparing one politician's Wikipedia based notability to another's, this discussion is about if the article meets the criteria in WP:BIO or WP:POLITICIAN using reliable sources. It may be that the other article should be discussed as a candidate for deletion; however, that discussion should not take place here. If there are reliable sources that support the criteria in WP:BIO or WP:POLITICIAN, I suggest you add them to the article. ttonyb (talk) 18:31, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Content found on Google relates to her role as councilor of Bolton, Ontario, which has a population of less than 30,000. News articles are not independent of her role as town councilor. According to WP:POLITICIAN, articles on town councilors are appropriate only when they serve a major metropolitan city. Cindamuse (talk) 19:49, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: WP:POLITICIAN is a section within Wikipedia:Notability (people) (also known as WP:BIO). It gives 3 possible bases for notability; only one has to be satisfied. For the reasons you cite, Ms. Groves' article fails criteria 1 and 2. For the reasons I cite, she meets criterion 3, so she's still notable as the topic of an article. As for the articles not being independent of her role as a councilor -- they don't have to be. Perhaps the majority of governors, premiers, etc. are notable only for activities associated with their political offices.--A. B. (talk • contribs) 20:07, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Further to A.B. the test is described as "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject of the article." This doesn't say that the coverage is independent of the subject's role as a politician, merely that the coverage be independent of the subject. So as long as the politician did not provide the information in the newpaper coverage themselves, it would be sufficiently independent. And as A.B. has indicated, only one of the three tests need be passed. Given the long-running, loud, rancorous debates on development and population in the Town of Caledon, all of which have been reported in major metropolitan media (ie. Toronto Star) as well as local Caledon media, and the intersection of this issue with the Region of Peel planning process and the Province of Ontario's Places to Grow debate, I'd submit that the issue discussed and debated is (a) important to a major metropolitan area of over 4 million people, (b) independently-reported, and (c) sufficient to evidence notability as a politician. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.179.39.241 (talk) 15:30, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. According to your statement, all politicians would qualify for inclusion in Wikipedia, regardless of their level of responsibility, simply because they were noted in the newspaper. This isn't the case. Governors and premiers are notable for their role and office, rather than newspaper articles covering their work as a government official. I don't think the subject of this article, as a councilor of a small town, qualifies for inclusion. Notability has not been established independent of that role. This article was created as part of a PR blitz in support of a small town political campaign. It's inappropriately added to Wikipedia. Cindamuse (talk) 20:35, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Response -- like it or not, Cindamuse, you're likely right -- at least for those who have gotten substantial, non-trivial, independent and reliable coverage such as this person has. Our community has thrashed this notability debate to death over the last 5+ years and it's consistently supported this principle time after time. The guideline I cited above reflects this. If we don't like the guideline then we should get the broader community to change it but in the meantime it's what governs notability here. --A. B. (talk • contribs) 21:17, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I appreciate the dialogue. Very interesting comment. I think under this criteria, anyone with mention in a newspaper would have an article about them on Wikipedia. Heck, for that matter, I have been mentioned in newspapers worldwide, due to providing consulting services with nonprofit organizations. However, while the organizations are notable, I don't believe that my involvement qualifies as notable to include an article. On another note, I need to amend my statement above about being a councilor of Bolton. She is actually a councilor of Caledon, representing Bolton. Again, thanks for the dialogue. I think I've added enough to the conversation. It's all a learning process. Cindamuse (talk) 21:36, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I'm afraid this does not currently meet the requirements of WP:BIO or WP:POLITICIAN. Unless reliable sources can be added, this is a clear delete. freshacconci talktalk 19:26, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment for Freshacconci -- when you get the chance, please check out the 2 external links I provided above as well as the material in section 3 of WP:POLITICIAN. Thanks! --A. B. (talk • contribs) 19:53, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The Toronto Star article is not about Anette Groves, and the local articles are exactly what you would expect in terms of coverage of a municipal councilor. As such, she fails both WP:POLITICIAN and the "significant" portion of the WP:GNG. VQuakr (talk) 04:00, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - no media coverage or other sources that establish notability. Round the Horne (talk) 19:52, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I was just about to close this as delete but I want to put it beyond doubt. The position here should be - as it often is with articles about local politicians - that the local news coverage (which is barely "coverage" as opposed to trivial mentions) presented is insufficient to form the basis of a claim to notability under WP:BIO or WP:POLITICIAN.--Mkativerata (talk) 19:36, 11 August 2010 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Annette_Groves&oldid=1137569671"