Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Catherine Pinhas


 * 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 redirect to Tom Mulcair as an alternative to deleting for WP:NOTINHERITED. ansh 666 08:50, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Catherine Pinhas

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

WP:BLP of a person whose only apparent claim of notability is that she's married to a former Canadian political party leader. Notability is not inherited, however, so this is not grounds for a Wikipedia article in and of itself -- but there's no real indication here that she has any standalone notability of her own as a psychologist. Bearcat (talk) 04:03, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 04:03, 26 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep - Very in-depth coverage specifically about this person, not the husband, from reliable sources like The Globe and Mail, the Toronto Star and the Huffington Post --Oakshade (talk) 07:55, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
 * The Huffington Post is not a GNG-assisting source — it's fine for supplementary verification of stray facts in an article that's already passed GNG on better sources, but not a bringer of GNG in its own right — and both of the others are covering her in the context of being Mulcair's wife, not in the context of doing anything in her own right that would pass a Wikipedia notability criterion. People who have no pass of any SNG are not automatically deemed notable-anyway just because we can find two sources that cover them in the context of nothing noteworthy — if that were true, our article subjects would have to include me. To be kept on just two sources, one or both of them would have to be covering her in the context of something that constituted an automatic must-include notability claim, such as actually holding political office in her own right. If you're going for "notable just because media coverage exists", however, then it takes quite a lot more than just two sources to get there. Bearcat (talk) 08:17, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Bearcat, reported articles in HuffPost, like this one by their Ottawa Bureau Chief, are rs, just like reported articles in any newspapers.E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:51, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
 * It doesn't matter that she passes WP:GNG because of her husband, but just that she passes WP:GNG regardless of reason the person got the coverage. GNG makes zero demand that someone had "already" passed GNG before a relative did.  As for the Huffington Post, GNG makes no discrimination against coverage that is seen as politically biased.  There could be an article entitled "Catherine Pinhas Totally Sucks!" and, provided that the coverage is independent of the topic and has editorial overview, that would still count as coverage towards GNG. --Oakshade (talk) 06:00, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, the context in which a person received their coverage does matter. If GNG were simply a matter of counting the number of sources that exist, but we paid no attention to the matter of whether the context of what the person was getting coverage for was notable or not, then we would have to keep articles about many unencyclopedic classes of people: everybody who ever got into the Real Estate section of their local newspaper for talking to a journalist about their process of buying a house or showing off their taste in interior design; everybody who ever ran for their local school board or town council regardless of whether they won or lost; every unsigned band that ever won a high school battle of the bands competition; people who had "human interest" pieces written about them because they happen to have more or less than the standard number of toes; librarians; food truck owners; presidents of church bake sale committees; my mother's neighbour who once found a pig in her front yard; and me. So yes, a person's media coverage does have to be in the context of something that passes a notability criterion — just showing that some >1 number of sources exists is not in and of itself enough if the context of what the sources are covering the person for doesn't pass a notability criterion. Bearcat (talk) 20:42, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Using a vague slippery slope argument comparing the topic of this article who easily passes WP:GNG from in-depth national coverage (not just "counting the number of sources") to local "food truck owners" and "everybody who ever got into the Real Estate section of their local newspaper" is a nonsensical counterargument that holds no weight. WP:NOTINHERITED is about individuals who are someone related to other notable people who do not pass WP:GNG as this person has.  If the reason this person became notable it makes you angry, you can make your case WP:NOTINHERITED talk page that anyone who passes GNG who originally became notable because of a spouse should be excluded from having articles.  In this case, as other have pointed out, the coverage is in the context of this topic's work anyway.  --Oakshade (talk) 22:32, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
 * It's not a "slippery slope" argument, nor is it nonsensical. It's a completely accurate and correct reflection of reality that if we simply counted the footnotes and kept any article that had two or more, but paid no attention to the context in which that coverage was being given, we would have to keep literally millions of articles about people — candidates for office, food truck owners, presidents of church bake sale committees, etc. — who our current standards deem not notable. I'm not making stuff up, either — we actually have seen people attempt in AFD discussions to assert that GNG had been passed just because the topic had Real Estate section coverage in the context of buying or owning a house, or Food section coverage in the context of sharing their favourite recipe for kale, or Wedding section coverage in the context of buying a bridal gown. To count toward GNG, coverage does have to be in the context of an accomplishment that simultaneously satisfies an SNG — to be notable just because media coverage of the person exists, without regard to the fact that the context in which it exists does not pass any SNG criteria, there has to be a lot more than just two or three pieces of media coverage. Bearcat (talk) 18:10, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
 * You're giving a slippery slope argument. The fact that someone who's coverage is of sharing a recipe in a newspaper food section doesn't have an article only confirms someone who's received multiple national in-depth coverage specific to this person isn't going to lead to the former having an article.  And as pointed out already, the coverage of this person is not in the "context" of another famous person but very specific to this person.  Being related to another famous person doesn't magically make all the coverage they receive just being in the "context" of that famous person as you are repeatedly claiming. --Oakshade (talk) 23:28, 4 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete the coverage is derived from that of her husband, not indepdent to her in reliable sources.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:25, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:18, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:18, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:18, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep WP:NOTINHERITED states that while "The fact of having a famous relative is not, in and of itself, sufficient to justify an independent article. Individuals in close, personal relationships with famous people (including politicians) can have an independent article even if they are known solely for such a relationship, but only if they pass WP:GNG." And the fact is that Pinhas has the kind of profiles in major media that carry bios past WP:GNG. (Even spouses of no public or notable accomplishment whatsoever like Jeanette Dousdebes Rubio and Todd Palin.)E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:42, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep. NOTINHERITED means that spouses of notable people have to earn their notability through WP:GNG rather than being notable by association even when there is no in-depth coverage. It does not, however, mean there is any presumption of non-notability for them when the sources exist, and it does not make sources tainted by being "derived from" their association. In this case, if the only sources were like the Star and Huffpo links from Oakshade, or this one from the Journal de Montreal (in French) – profiles of her as a politician's wife – then she'd still pass WP:GNG (we have multiple major stories about her) but fail WP:BIO1E. However in the case of Pinhas we also have sources about her in a different context, her work with refugees: The Globe & Mail link from Oakshade, and this one from Métro (also in French). So she passes both GNG and BIO1E. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:37, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   10:12, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep the earlier votes have enough coverage to meet WP:GNG. Just because the motivation for those articles may be her relation to a leader, that's not a reason to ignore them.  There is clearly sufficient information about her to write a verifiable article about her.  The coverage is far better than anything on Savita Kovind, for example.  The presumption of notability for "first ladies" and no other political spouses should not be interpreted as an iron-clad rule. power~enwiki ( π,  ν ) 01:16, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete. it is accepted that we do not make articles for people whose notability  is that of thespouse of a political leader, unless the position is Head of State (or sometimes Head of Government, but not such a position as Leader of the Oppposition). This is a good practice, because it could well be a slippery slope. The policy behind that sort of limitation is NOT TABLOID--we're a place of encyclopedic content, not just human interest.  DGG ( talk ) 02:19, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
 * That would be the case if the person didn't become notable in their own right as this person has regardless of a more famous family member.--Oakshade (talk) 04:16, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Invalid assertion, DGG's good faith assertion is untrue. We have articles on many political spouses such as Nikki Haley's husband Michael, on Marco Rubio's wife Jeanette, who receive INDEPTH press coverage due because of the person they are married to.  Such pages account for many or most of pages that fill categories like Category:Spouses of Florida politicians, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Spouses_of_United_States_Senators, and Category:Spouses of United States state governors.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:20, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Then we should delete them. Its a gross invasion of privacy for a non-notable individual. OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is a horrible argument. Pointing out that we require some of the strongest evidence of notability for BLPs is not an invalid argument. TonyBallioni (talk) 23:05, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
 * So your argument is OTHERSTUFFSHOULDNTEXIST ("Then we should delete them"), but OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is still a horrible argument. Care to clarify? --Oakshade (talk) 23:28, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Sure: we have pages that violate policy and guidelines all the time. This AfD is about this particular article. DGG has provided a valid deletion argument, and trying to rebut it by finding counterexamples in articles is not an argument to keep this article. It is an argument to assess whether or not those articles meet our inclusion criteria based on the valid issues that DGG and others have raised, not to keep this article. TonyBallioni (talk) 04:49, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
 * It's not a valid argument to make vague claims about the problem of other articles as reason to delete this one, just as it's not a valid argument to point to existing articles as reason to keep this one. Every topic needs to be gauged on whether it passes our notability guidelines.  Many spouses of famous people do, many do not.  This one has had in-depth coverage specifically about her. --Oakshade (talk) 07:16, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
 * DGG is making an argument based on NOT, not one based on notability. That is equally valid a reason to delete. I am adding the notability commentary to show that there is not a good reason to figure out how to save the content for BLP privacy reasons. TonyBallioni (talk) 13:53, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Seriously? She gives INDEPTH interviews about her childhood, her parents childhood, and her personal life; flies around the country campaigning with spouse; poses for TV and news photographers; he jusband writs about her life in his campaign bio, and, in short, she does not seek privacy but, quite the opposite, leads a public life - and you argue that her privacy is violated?E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:08, 10 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete per DGG. The only coverage she has is in relationship to her husband. The question is not whether there is enough verifiable information to write an article about here: there is enough verifiable information to write an article about the dog down the road biting the policeman. The question is whether there is enough coverage about her, because of her actions, that warrant the invasion of privacy that having a Wikipedia article entails. The answer her is clearly no. She is a living person. She is not a public figure. Her husband is a public figure, so she has received coverage in relationship to him, but none significant enough for there to be an article about her on her own. In cases like this, we side firmly on the side of not invading the privacy of a living person. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:38, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete -- not independently notable. Name can be optionally redirected to Tom_Mulcair at editorial discretion, since the subject is mentioned there. A straight "Delete" would be okay with me too. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:56, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete not independently notable in his own right, and notability cannot be inherited on Wikipedia. Also spouse of opposition leader in this case is bit odd to say she is notable. Close scan of all the references used will show, had she not related to him, she will not be mentioned. Simple there's no significant coverage for her to be notable now, perhaps she can have article when she become next opposition leader herself. –Ammarpad (talk) 16:56, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Sources If you look at the hits on gBooks, you see that marriage to her is credited as the means by which the Anglophone Mulcair polished his French, a crucial skill for a Quebec politician. Non one is arguing that she is "independently " notable, only that there is sufficient INDEPTH to pass WP:SIGCOV.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:02, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
 * This source [cjnews.com/canada/new-ndp-leader-strongly-backs-israel], shows that Mulcair used his wife's biography to garner votes. I found it by scanning the page history for material deleted fomr article.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:23, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
 * the  Canadian Jewish News  has had quite a bit of coverage of her  over the years.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:31, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
 * an excerpt form the husband's campaign bio, usually entitled The enchantment of Tom Mulcair ran in newspapers across Canada in 2015. I'm looking at the papers that ran it via a Proquest search, but here it in in teh Ottawa Citizen : [ http://ottawacitizen.com/news/politics/the-enchantment-of-tom-mulcair The enchantment of Tom Mulcair: NDP leader Tom Mulcair’s autobiography, Strength of Conviction, hits bookstores Aug. 1. In this excerpt, he describes how, as a young law student, he wooed his future wife, Catherine, despite the initial alarm of her well-to-do parents. Over the years, she would also become his most trusted adviser.]E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:40, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Since you, yourself agree that she is not independently notable then the best cake she can have on Wikipedia is redirect and little mention in her spouse page. See WP:NOPAGE. –Ammarpad (talk) 00:31, 11 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete - Per WP:NOTINHERITED. The context of the sources are essential to note and analyze before hastily coming to a decision. Had it not been for her notable husband, Catherine would not be mentioned in any sources. Her marriage certainly is not akin to being a First Lady, and I agree with Tony: we should be on the side of not invading an unnotable living person's privacy.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 00:24, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
 * That's not a valid argument to delete. WP:NOTINHERITED does not and has never forbade articles on people who pass WP:GNG who are also related to famous people.  It's for people related to more famous ones who have not received in-depth coverage, unlike this person who has.  There's no "This person would be nothing without their wife/husband" clause. --Oakshade (talk) 01:23, 11 December 2017 (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.