Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Andrea Slobodian


 * 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. Some of the arguments for keeping are weak but even discounting these there is still consensus is that the sources identified do constitute sufficient independent coverage to establish notability. Michig (talk) 09:10, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Andrea Slobodian

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Contested PROD. Not a notable journalist. The sources offered are Sun Media press releases or not independant, non-trivial, reliable sources. Contributor claims to be affiliated with Sun Media, so COI as well. Wtshymanski (talk) 15:30, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep This person regularly appears on national TV as a reporter and as a commentator. That alone makes her notable.  The sources are not only from Sun.  It is ok to use primary sources for certain non-contentious items, as I have done.  Also, I am not affiliated with Sun Media, and have never said so, please do not lie.  It's annoying.  --Rob (talk) 15:42, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment Please be sure to check the history of the article, before voting, as the nominator will repeatedly remove key points in the article. I ask content be kept to the conclusion of this AFD.  Then, if it doesn't belong it will be deleted anyhow, and no harm is done.  Obviously the nom feels none of the content belongs, so why pick out parts to remove, instead of just waiting to the end, where everything will be removed, if that's the consensus.  --Rob (talk) 15:55, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment by nominator The original contributor claimed to be affiliated with the subject of this article or with Sun Media in a statement on my talk page. --Wtshymanski (talk) 16:00, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I made a typing mistake, and missed the word "not". I am NOT affiliated with Sun News, or the subject.  My only meeting is the day I took her picture, when we were both at the same news event. --Rob (talk) 16:04, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I just checked, this isn't the one who posed as a Sunshine Girl. That would be at least noterity, if not notability --Wtshymanski (talk) 16:14, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions.  —Rob (talk) 16:19, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Rob (talk) 16:21, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 18:25, 12 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Weak Keep. Arguably too soon, but I have a soft spot for photogenic Canadians. --Legis (talk - contribs) 01:30, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment by nominator Being a pretty girl is not notable. Sells papers, but isn't a basis for including in an encyclopedia. --Wtshymanski (talk) 14:47, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Please don't make comments like this, as they can be seen as a kind of soft insult and belittling of a person, in this context. Read the article, review the sources, look for more sources, check guidelines and precedent, and make your judgement.  If it's delete, that's fine with me.  But, this kind of comment really puts Wikipedia in a bad light.  I expect the closing admin will disregard this "vote".    --Rob (talk) 02:11, 16 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete Fails WP:CREATIVE. Subject does not have independent coverage -- independent of Sun Media/Quebecor, in particular -- indicating notability per WP:GNG. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 04:30, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, v/r - TP 22:09, 20 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment – See below for some independent coverage I found. Northamerica1000 (talk) 22:35, 23 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Weak Keep – Per coverage in reliable sources:, , , . Northamerica1000 (talk) 23:55, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment by nominator Did you notice the publishers of most of those sources? Did you notice the "independent" part of "multiple, independent, reliable, significant" sources in the notability guideline? Of course Sun Media press releases get printed in all the Sun Media papers. GNG says ""Independent of the subject" excludes works produced by those affiliated with the subject or its creator. For example, self-publicity, advertising, self-published material by the subject, the subject's website, autobiographies, and press releases are not considered independent."--Wtshymanski (talk) 02:30, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment – The only source that appears to possibly, but not necessarily be sourced from a press release is . Can you further verify that the following are sourced from press releases, , ? The Hamilton Magazine.com link doesn't appear to be as such whatsoever. Northamerica1000 (talk) 18:21, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Two blog posts, and one "by the way" sentence in an article about someone else entirely. These are not significant references. --Wtshymanski (talk) 18:56, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
 * By way of contrast, Lloyd Robertson is a notable television journalist. Note that he's got an Order of Canada,and has anchored the nightly newscast for both national networks, and has been an overseas correspondent covering major news events. I don't know how important a talking head is, but he was at least notable. He has significant biographical coverage...the subject of the article at hand hasn't had time to build up any biography. --Wtshymanski (talk) 19:07, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment – From the Chrisd.ca website: "ChrisD.ca is a daily Winnipeg-based news publication dedicated to covering the city and southern Manitoba. Our team of photographers and editors scour the city to bring you the latest breaking news and current events. Having launched in the spring of 2008, ChrisD.ca has become a destination for Winnipeggers to get their news fix quickly and easily. We’re also one of the only media websites to report on the media themselves. " While it appears to be a small organization, it does appear to have editorial integrity. As such, it does not appear to be a questionable source. Also, it does not appear that the content in the Chrisd.ca articles I cited above are derived from press releases whatsoever. Northamerica1000 (talk) 01:42, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment – None of the sources I cited above are from public relations/marketing-style press releases. This link mentioned above as the only one being possibly sourced from a press release,  is not a "press release" vis-a-vis marketing or public relations, or sourced from such style of a press release. It is an article from the news agency Postmedia News that Global Winnipeg published, which provides objective articles to various news media outlets. They also appear to run the Canada.com news website. News agency articles are valid as reliable sources; the Associated Press is another example of a news agency. Northamerica1000 (talk) 01:59, 23 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep London Free Press is a reliable source.  Notable news sources repeating a press release, means they must think the information notable, or they wouldn't bother with it.  Do they do that for every single show in existence?  http://www.chrisd.ca/blog/14332/andrea-slobodian-global-winnipeg-shaw-tv-calgary/ is notable despite the word "blog" being in the address.  Editorial oversight, paid staff, obviously a reliable source.   D r e a m Focus  07:23, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Press releases are meant to be printed by papers. Papers like them because they are free and so they don't have to pay a writer to come up with actual research. Would someone please explain to me why this particular talking head is considered notable enoguh to be including in our Pokemon directory? She hasn't DONE anything yet. If we list every talking head on every cable network TV show, we're going to have a lot of very ephemeral personalities listed.  Is this our encyclopediac purpose here? --Wtshymanski (talk) 14:25, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
 * If all that publicity is just because of becoming "co-anchor", isn't this a case of a single event? --Wtshymanski (talk) 15:02, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment – The link provided above by User:Dream Focus,, is derived from QMI Agency, which is a news agency. Press releases from news agencies differ greatly from press releases that companies publish and disperse to market products and services. Another example of a well-known news agency is the Associated Press, whose articles are used very frequently in newspapers and other mass media worldwide. Press releases from news agencies that are used in mass media are valid as reliable sources, whereas those from companies' public relations and marketing departments used to market products and services generally aren't considered reliable sources. Northamerica1000 (talk) 02:15, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
 * If I get a letter to the editor published in the Times (pick your favorite Times), does that make me notable enough for a Wikipedia article? If my PR flack sends releases to *every single outlet in the world* and, due to boredom, a hole in the advertising layout, and a silly-season lack of real news, some of them are rash enough to print it, does that make me notable enough to appear in Wikipedia? Reliable sources, bless their hearts, sometimes fill the paper with trivia and filler on non-notable topics. This person is not notable enoguh for a Wikipedia article, especially when the references are so insubstantial in content.  We don't even have a reference saying what month she was born in or when she graduated, let alone what substantial accomplishments she's made in the field.  --Wtshymanski (talk) 15:24, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment – You're positing hypothetical ideas about public relations sources in general— none of the citations I posted are such, nor is the one posted above by User:Dream Focus. They also aren't letters to the editor. This may be misleading to other editors who read this AfD, discussing PR matters when the sources I cited just aren't. Hopefully others who may just skim AfD don't assume the sources are PR from this type of mischaracterization. Peace. Northamerica1000 (talk) 21:10, 23 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep:  Not extremely notable, but far more notable than a local-market new reporter.  BTW, misogyny like this--"this isn't the one who posed as a Sunshine Girl"--irritates me greatly, and causes me to question the nominator's ability to make proper nominations.--Milowent • hasspoken  04:50, 26 December 2011 (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.