Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alanna Devine


 * 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. The best arguments are from Bearcat and Beccaynr, who are diametrically opposed to each other. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  19:38, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Alanna Devine

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Non notable individual. Lacks independent coverage in reliable sources. Comments form her are not coverage about her. duffbeerforme (talk) 09:19, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 09:51, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 09:51, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 09:51, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Quebec-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 09:52, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 09:52, 7 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep: Examination of references strongly indicates this article meets GNG. --Whiteguru (talk) 10:09, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Which references specifically? duffbeerforme (talk) 10:19, 7 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete. The references present here do not "strongly" indicate that the article meets GNG. The overwhelming majority of the footnotes are primary sources that are not support for notability, such as staff profiles on the self-published websites of directly affiliated organizations and video clips of her speaking — and the few sources that are actually to real notability-supporting media are not coverage about her, but coverage which merely namechecks her as a giver of soundbite in an article whose core subject is somebody or something else. That's not how you get a person over WP:GNG: the sources have to be media coverage which has her as its subject, not just any page you can find on the web that happens to have her name in it. The notability test is not "she did stuff", it's "she got media coverage about the stuff she did" — and none of the sources here are showing that she's passed that test. Bearcat (talk) 13:14, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep My initial research shows Devine has been recognized as an expert by multiple independent and reliable sources over time, e.g. Montreal Gazette 2009, CTV News 2011, CTV News 2014, The Globe and Mail 2015, BBC News 2016, Global News 2016, Global News 2016, so there appears to be sufficient coverage of Devine as an expert per WP:BASIC, i.e. "If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability" and the essay WP:INTERVIEW, which reasons, "An independent interviewer represents the "world at large" giving attention to the subject, and as such, interviews as a whole contribute to the basic concept of notability," and "The material provided by the interviewee may be [...] secondary, if the interviewee is recognized as an expert on the subject being reported." Beccaynr (talk) 15:46, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment These additional sources cover Devine's advocacy related to the Montreal and Quebec 'pit-bull bans': Global News 2016, TODAY 2017 (also includes discussion of litigation), Toronto Star 2018. Beccaynr (talk) 16:33, 7 February 2021 (UTC) (and The Washinton Post, 2016) Beccaynr (talk) 16:50, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
 * We're looking for sources that are about her, not sources that happen to mention or quote her in the process of being about something or somebody else. Bearcat (talk) 17:05, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
 * WP:BASIC appears to anticipate that notability can be derived from extensive coverage over time in multiple independent and reliable sources, and the reasoning of the WP:INTERVIEW essay seems to further support this, particularly when sources quote Devine as an expert, which is a form of commentary about Devine. There appears to be a mix of reporting about Devine's work and her expert opinions; but there is so much coverage, I have asked for assistance from the Article Rescue Squadron to help incorporate and organize the sources, generally help with article cleanup, and assist with French translation if possible. None of the sources that I have reviewed at this point seem to happen to mention Devine as a trivial detail, but instead seek her expert opinion and/or discuss her professional work in the context of the subject being reported, which seems to be reporting about her that supports her notability. Beccaynr (talk) 22:13, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
 * No. For a source to support her notability, she has to be the thing that is getting talked about in that source — getting quoted for soundbite about some other subject is not support for her notability. Bearcat (talk) 04:23, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Devine is an animal law expert and an attorney, who has been covered extensively by independent and reliable sources due to her expertise and professional work; per Green  C, there are over 500 sources to sort through, and per WP:NEXIST, "Wikipedia articles are not a final draft, and an article's subject can be notable if such sources exist, even if they have not been named yet. If it is likely that significant coverage in independent sources can be found for a topic, deletion due to lack of notability is inappropriate." I have listed multiple examples of sources that offer secondary commentary 'about' Devine as an expert by seeking her expertise, not a "soundbite," which supports her notability as an expert, and I have listed examples that discuss her professional work, which is not "some other subject" in the articles, and supports the notability of her professional work; furthermore, additional sources clearly seem likely to exist. Beccaynr (talk) 04:57, 10 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete Non-notable lawyer. Oaktree b (talk) 19:31, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Beccaynr (talk) 21:37, 7 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete for failing to meet WP:GNG. --SilverTiger12 (talk) 22:22, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep per Beccaynr and BASIC. She has been involved in important legislation, is a leading expert in Quebec, has received international coverage. There are over 500 sources listed in a Google News search where reliable sources have sought her out and/or quoted her. Influential and leading expert. GNG does not limit to biographical-oriented sources only (which would be arbitrary), rather it is "significant coverage" and this amount and type of coverage is a significant signal of notability. -- Green  C  22:32, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep based on what GreenC just said. I was not convinced before, thinking she only mentioned as the spokesperson for an organization, but they are quoting her words, considering her an expert in her field, so she is notable.   D r e a m Focus  03:44, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep per WP:BASIC. This is an example of "the depth of coverage in any given source" not being substantial but "multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability."--User:Namiba 14:45, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep: Per Namiba and BASIC. She is notable.Jacwizy (talk) 18:38, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete Does not meet WP:GNG. Per Bearcat, many references do not meet WP:RS. The many independent, secondary sources that merely mention the subject are not about the subject, and do not constitute 'significant coverage' as required by WP:BASIC. Bigpencils (talk) 06:52, 12 February 2021 (UTC)


 * 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.