Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Emilie Guimond-Bélanger

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. Randykitty (talk) 14:03, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Emilie Guimond-Bélanger[edit]

[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)

WP:BLP of a political activist, with no strong notability claim per WP:NPOL and no strong reliable source coverage about her. The only real notability claims here are that she (a) was an unsuccessful election candidate, and (b) filled in for a few weeks in 2011 as her party's de facto spokesperson while the actual party leader was on a temporary leave of absence -- neither of which is a strong claim to permanent notability at all. And for sourcing, we have her primary source candidate profile on her political party's website, an article in the university alumni newsletter of her own alma mater, a raw table of the results in her unsuccessful election, and two glancing namechecks of her existence in news articles about other things -- which is nowhere near solid enough sourcing to pass WP:GNG in lieu of NPOL. Bearcat (talk) 15:20, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Quebec-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 15:22, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 15:22, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Thsmi002 (talk) 17:46, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - have now included strong sources from La Presse, Huffington Post Quebec, Le Devoir, Toronto Star, and shifted focus from "temp spokesperson", to leader of National Women's Commission. Also included notable work as an academic/social worker/activist. Bogger (talk) 10:43, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - does not seem to be notable. The only "claim to fame" seems to be "stand-in" for spokesperson. This article [[1]] dated monday 28.03.2011 seems to refer to a meeting on saturday 26.03.2011 where she was elected as spokesperson in the absence of Françoise David til she was back on August 1rst 2011. This abcense is not mentioned in the article about David or in the article about Québec solidaire. Being elected spokesperson seems to be the only element of the article that speaks for a keep. The rest of the article does not seem to show notability. regards ^ツDyveldi ^{☯ prat} _{✉ post} 16:00, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:45, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep: https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/montreal-homeless-man-100k-fines-1.3473707 and https://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/montreal-homeless-facing-up-to-110-000-in-fines-1.2802694 seems to be pretty decent coverage. WP:ONEEVENT is a consideration, but there's probably enough else to be significant. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 05:01, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Those aren't articles about her — they just include her giving soundbite to the media in articles whose core subject is something else besides her, so they aren't notability-making coverage of her. Bearcat (talk) 23:49, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete: though I must commend Bogger's work in expanding the article, the only real coverage seems to be this source. Indeed I agree with Bearcat that the subject's commentary on news articles is not coverage of her, but of the issues she is discussing. — Bilorv_(c)(talk) 23:44, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kirbanzo (talk) 21:38, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the article isn't sourced well enough for her to pass WP:GNG. She's only significantly covered in two articles, one of which is the CBC article about homelessness and the other one is the Laval article whose independence I doubt, seems like a student profile? Everything else are just mentions or article quotes. SportingFlyer talk 05:03, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per GNG and Bilorv. Depth of sourcing is absent. Yoninah (talk) 20:02, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per SportingFlyer and Yoninah. Falls short of GNG, but given that I feel that the article has potential, draftify? Meanwhile, does any believe that that one source can be attached to an existing article related to the subject? FoxyGrampa75 (talk) 03:06, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, and WP:TOOSOON. --1l2l3k (talk) 04:33, 11 December 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.