Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Carolyn Mackenzie (2nd nomination)


 * 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.

Note: I strongly disagree with the content of the non-administrative closure, below. I agree that the result of the discussion is keep, but it is not for the reasons given. The consensus of the discussion is explicitly not that the subject passes GNG; the discussion of the sources is quite clear: there is considerable disagreement over how they are to be weighed. In the end, ANYBIO must carry the day: at least one acceptable source verifies the Murrow award, which is significant enough (that it is is not disputed). Drmies (talk) 22:17, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

The result was keep (non-admin closure). The consensus is that, while the article may not meet each specification of WP:JOURNALIST, Mackenzie meets WP:GNG. At the end of the day, the Toronto Sun and Etobicoke Guardian articles are independent, reliable sources providing significant coverage of the article subject - ample evidence that the subject meets GNG. North of Eden (talk) 21:07, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Carolyn Mackenzie
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Relisting for further consideration following a no-consensus close in February. The core issue is that the article is not based on substantive coverage in properly reliable sources, but is resting entirely on a "local celebrities show off their homes" puff piece in a newspaper's "Homes and Condos" column (#1), a journalism school newsletter (#2) and her own primary source profile on the website of her own employer (#3). While the article asserts an award win that would get her over WP:JOURNALIST if it were properly sourced, as written it's sourced only to that "look at my lovely furniture" advertorial rather than a real news article. As always, a journalist does not get into Wikipedia just because it's possible to verify the fact that she exists — she gets into Wikipedia by being the subject of substantive coverage in reliable sources, but that hasn't been demonstrated here. Still a delete unless it can be salvaged with much better sourcing than this. Bearcat (talk) 15:43, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:37, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:37, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nova Scotia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:37, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:37, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:37, 8 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete Not enough sources to pass notability at this time.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:12, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep - I'm not sure she meets WP:JOURNALIST, however, she passes WP:ANYBIO as a recipient of an Edward R. Murrow Award, a "significant award". WP:GNG is enhanced by this lengthy article in Inside Toronto, a reliable source. Magnolia677 (talk) 00:59, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
 * A person passes WP:ANYBIO on the basis of the quality of reliable sourcing that can be provided to support a claim to passing ANYBIO — not on the basis of an unsourced or "sourced only to the Etobicoke Guardian" (a community weekly that is not widely distributed enough to count toward satisfying GNG) claim. Bearcat (talk) 04:05, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Bearcat, I hope you're not planning on aggressively rebutting every "keep" comment. That would certainly intimidate other editors who may wish to respond.  Other editors should note that the Etobicoke Guardian is published by Metroland Media Group, a reputable source.  Magnolia677 (talk) 04:52, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Not "every" keep comment, but certainly the ones based on invalid reasoning. The Etobicoke Guardian is a limited-circulation community weekly newspaper which does not count toward the meeting of WP:GNG — a source can be "reliable" for the confirmation of facts while failing to be acceptable for the conferral of notability under GNG, and community weeklies of the Etobicoke Guardian ilk fall in that class of sourcing. Regardless of who the publishing company is, a community weekly newspaper can never confer notability on its own, but may only be used for supplementary confirmation of facts after you've already covered off her notability with sufficient sourcing of the Toronto Star/The Globe and Mail/National Post ilk. It cannot bring the notability in and of itself, if it's the best sourcing you can find — it's not that it's an unreliable or entirely disallowed source, it's that it's not widely distributed enough to be a notability-conferring source. Bearcat (talk) 06:33, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 07:26, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment - This article was nominated for deletion in February 2015, and then relisted twice. The result was "no consensus".  The same editor who first nominated it for deletion did so again in July 2015.  It was then relisted.  That make 5 listings in 6 months.  WP:RELIST states: "relisting debates repeatedly in the hope of getting sufficient participation is not recommended, and while having a deletion notice on a page is not harmful, its presence over several weeks can become disheartening for its editors. Therefore, in general, debates should not be relisted more than twice."  This seems to be pushing the spirit of the policy.  Magnolia677 (talk) 09:27, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
 * That refers to continually relisting the original discussion more than twice. It does not preclude initiating a new discussion five or six months after a no-consensus close on the first one, if the substance of the problem still hasn't been dealt with. And, for the record, you were the only person who voted to keep the first time — solely on the basis of being able to add one more inadequate source that still doesn't properly support her notability, because it was fundamentally about her living room furniture rather than her work as a journalist. The lack of consensus landed because nobody else even participated in the discussion at all besides you and me — an increasingly common problem across all of AFD these days — and note that the closer explicitly cited "no prejudice against speedy renomination" in his closure rationale. I notice you left those parts of the story out of your summary above — but if you're going to accuse me of acting improperly in this matter, then you don't get to leave out that much of the context. Bearcat (talk) 17:36, 17 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep - Clearly passes WP:ANYBIO as a recipient of an Edward R. Murrow Award, a "significant award". Excluding sources published by her employer, four other reliable sources have been cited in the article, and each has written detailed articles about this person. Magnolia677 (talk) 18:30, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Let's go over this again: #1 = article in the Homes and Condos section about her living room furniture, therefore counting for nothing toward GNG. #2 = journalism school newsletter, counting for nothing toward GNG. #3 = community weekly newspaper, counting for nothing toward GNG. #4 = another journalism school newsletter, counting for nothing toward GNG. #5 = glancing namecheck of her existence in a press release, counting for nothing toward GNG. #6 = primary source. So where are these four reliable sources you speak of? Bearcat (talk) 19:07, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
 * You have inferred that the Etobicoke Guardian is not a reliable source, yet it has had its own Wikipedia article for 8 years. Why have you not nominated it for deletion?  And the Toronto Sun has a daily circulation of over 100,000.  Also, please don't be condescending by writing: "let's go over this again".  You were the one who nominated this article for deletion a second time; be prepared to state your case respectfully a second time.  Administrator Bearcat, this is the second time I've felt the need to comment on your aggressive tone.  I find it intimidating; please stop it.  Thank you.  Magnolia677 (talk) 20:15, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia does not have a rule that only newspapers with large enough circulations to confer notability under GNG are allowed to have Wikipedia articles about the newspapers — whether the paper is a notable topic is a completely different matter than whether the newspaper has a wide enough circulation to contribute to GNGing a person that the newspaper has covered. If a newspaper of that class could get a person over GNG by itself, we'd have to keep an article about every person who ever coordinated a church bake sale. (That said, the article about the newspaper is completely unsourced and demonstrates no notability of its own — so consider it redirected to its parent company forthwith.)
 * And I didn't cast aspersions on the Toronto Sun as a publication, either — I pointed out that the citation to the Toronto Sun that you added to this article is not covering Carolyn Mackenzie in the context of her work as a journalist, but in the context of her taste in living room furniture. Being the subject of a "look at my lovely home" advertorial in a newspaper's Homes and Condos section does not, in and of itself, demonstrate that the person belongs in an encyclopedia — it wouldn't matter whether it was in the Toronto Sun, the Toronto Star, the New York Times or the Washington Post, it would still be an article about her taste in interior design rather than her work. Bearcat (talk) 15:51, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 04:13, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep - Does pass WP:JOURNALIST criteria #4c: "has won significant critical attention" for winning the Edward R. Murrow award and sources cited above by user:Magnolia677 verify this, regardless of other topics of the article. Additionally, I would not characterize a university magazine as a journalism school newsletter. A university magazine, such as the one cited in the article, has higher standards of journalism than a newsletter. Techtacular (talk) 13:42, 29 July 2015 (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.