Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Avalon Roberts


 * 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.  MBisanz  talk 02:02, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

Avalon Roberts

 * – ( View AfD View log )

This is a fairly typical political activist and candidate, who has not been elected to any government office. Coverage of her is the type any candidate or spokesperson for a political group would receive. There is very little biographical information about her beyond the mini-bios of her published by her (or her party) when she's run for office. Her professional accomplishments could warrant inclusion, if properly sourced, but I don't see that (beyond obligatory mentions of roles she's had, as part of election coverage). Rob (talk) 00:09, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Rob (talk) 00:09, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Alberta-related deletion discussions. Rob (talk) 00:09, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 08:26, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Goldsztajn (talk) 05:32, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Psychiatry-related deletion discussions. Goldsztajn (talk) 05:39, 23 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete as I could not find WP:SIGCOV with a WP:BEFORE. VV 11:05, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete. Failed candidates are not presumptively notable under WP:NPOL, and my searches don't find sufficient non-trivial coverage in reliable sources to meet WP:NBIO. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 03:40, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete as per nom. Subject fails WP:NPOL. Powerful Karma (talk) 15:08, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment possible her Presidency of the Alberta Psychiatric Association passes C6 of NPROF... Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 03:51, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
 * As far as I can tell, the association isn't even notable, much less a "major academic society". It seems to just be a run-of-the-mill province-level NGO. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 03:56, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't see run-of-the-mill as a counter argument here; it's not as if there are multiple associations of psychiatrists in Alberta, there's a single professional organisation that represents a group of specialised medical professionals, which also belies assertions of a lack of notability.  Moreover, being president of the organisation indicates recognition from one's peers.  I'm certainly on the fence for this, wholeheartedly agree that she fails NPOL, but the combination of political work, professional recognition and longevity of activity makes this quite borderline. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 05:29, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
 * That's a very broad interpretation of NPROF. The notes on criterion 6 state that only the head of a "notable national or international scholarly society" satisfies the requirement. This association fails on all three counts: it's isn't notable, it's not at a national level, and it's not really even a scholarly society (it doesn't publish a journal, for instance). If Roberts is notable, it can only be on the GNG front: the SSGs don't seem to move the needle. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 05:45, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm one for the spirit, rather than the letter of the law ... or ipso facto the Luxembourguese Society of Psychiatry is inherently notable and the APA is not, despite Alberta having eight times the population of Luxembourg. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 10:37, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
 * But the association isn't notable, i.e. it fails WP:NORG. That means that Roberts fails NPROF, full stop. If we keep this article, that would result in the absurd result that articles on non-notable organizations should be deleted but articles on their non-notable presidents should be kept. NPROF was not written for cases like this one; indeed, it expressly excludes them. Criterion 6 was intended for organizations like the Modern Language Association and the Royal Society. I would suggest that interpreting it so broadly violates both the spirit and the letter of the law. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 16:33, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I've commented elsewhere at AfD that "national" is a deeply problematic and contradictory threshold to attach to presumed notability which produces systemic bias (to me particularly noticeable during my participation in discussions related to India and Pakistan); but also visible here: there are more than 70 UN member states with less population than Alberta. In Canada, the equivalent society of the MLA for psychiatrists is the Canadian Psychiatric Association, in the UK the equivalent would be the Royal College of Psychiatrists, like the CPA and the APA, a membership based organisations open to practicing medical specialists. Being elected a fellow or president of these organisations is notable peer-recognition. The comparison with the Royal Societies is inappropriate, the equivalent for psychiatry, the Royal Society of Medicine, has a different status and does not carry the same peer recognition (eg one simply reaches a level of seniority and pays a fee to be a fellow of the RSM).  Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 23:37, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I conducted a WP:BEFORE search and determined that the association was not notable under WP:NORG. (My presumptions never entered into it.) If the association isn't notable, NPROF doesn't apply, regardless of whether it's provincial, national, international, or intergalatic. ("president of a notable national or international scholarly society", emphasis mine, is the standard.) In any event, it seems your issue is more with NPROF than its application to this article; perhaps you should start an RfC on revising it. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 00:01, 24 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete presidency of the Alberta Psychiatric society does not meet any academic notability guidelines, the society does not meet our perameters for such societies the presidency of which makes one notable. There is no other indication of notability either.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:47, 24 May 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.