Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Denise Mountenay


 * 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. Missvain (talk) 05:28, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Denise Mountenay

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This biography fails to establish notability. I looked for better sourcing but found nothing. The existing references are WP:PRIMARY sources in which Mountenay is speaking, so they cannot be used to establish notability. What are needed are secondary sources describing Mountenay's life and career in depth. The closest source to that goal is the Twitch Film review. Binksternet (talk) 14:21, 25 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete: Does not seem to meet any notability guideline at this time . -- BenTels (talk) 14:54, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  15:10, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  15:11, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  15:11, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Keep she has been profiled by The National on CBC - that is a very good indicator of notability in Canada. Legacypac (talk) 06:58, 26 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Author's Comments :Binksternet was very hasty in nominating this article for deletion. I had barely gotten the article posted when he nominated it. It makes me wonder what his motives are for nominating the page since Denise Mountenay most certainly is a noteworthy figure (even half an hour of searching on the Internet demonstrates that). If someone who has been allowed to speak before the United Nations is not a noteworthy person, then I suppose a great many present day people listed in Wikipedia would not be considered noteworthy. I find his knee jerk nomination concerning and discouraging to those desiring to help Wikipedia be a quality resource with information on diverse segments of modern life and society. Is there no process by which people abusing their accounts, to list pages for deletion before they are even fully completed, could be given warnings or something? This is a ridiculous behavior, that calls into question the whole review process of Wikipedia.


 * As an aside, I have been making several more modifications to the page dedicated to Denise Mountenay adding material and references and refining content. I am relatively new to Wikipedia's authoring process. I had tried authoring on Wikipedia before but was discouraged from trying, due to seeing this kind of slaphappy conduct from reviewers. I have been more persistent, this time around, but once again, feel very discouraged. Please, be aware that I am sincerely trying to do a good job for the sake of all parties. Guidance and assistance is good, ideas on how to improve a page is good, but these punitive tactics are not good. Bushost (talk) 08:35, 26 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Remember it's not about you, and it's not about me. The only thing that matters here is that you demonstrate that Mountenay has been profiled in depth in WP:SECONDARY sources, not sources in which she is interviewed or in which she is the author. Check out WP:BIO to see what are your options. Binksternet (talk) 15:26, 26 January 2015 (UTC)


 * "If someone who has been allowed to speak before the United Nations is not a noteworthy person, then I suppose a great many present day people listed in Wikipedia would not be considered noteworthy." Agreed; a great many people listed in Wikipedia should not be because they are not noteworthy. This tu quoque is irrelevant to the present discussion. As Binkster says, this is not about Binkser's biases; I am myself pro-life, but I think he has a point in flagging this article. What are needed are independent secondary sources to establish notability. --Yaush (talk) 15:39, 26 January 2015 (UTC)


 * I see that you have added numerous citations to the article, of which the vast majority are to activist Web pages. These won't do as reliable secondary sources to establish notability. The Edmonton Examiner link is better, but you'll need more that the one. --Yaush (talk) 22:29, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
 * Delete. Obvious COI spam. The few reliable sources are exceedingly trivial mentions. I can't verify the claim that "The National" covered her, but in checking, I found that the article appears to be copied at least partly from promotional material. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 01:50, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete: desperate reference bombardment of trivial mentions, self-published stuff, and other improprieties. It cries out for speedy deletion for blatant promotion. Vrac (talk)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 12:46, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Relist note: Nominally I could have closed this after seven days as delete given the arguments for deletion are far stronger policy-wise, but I felt that given the adversarial nature of the discussion and the quick timeframe that this was nominated, some extra time may be beneficial. If a consensus forms before another seven days is up, I wouldn't hesitate in closing it earlier than 9 Feb. Daniel (talk) 12:47, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the extra time
I have been away from Wikipedia for a bit. I have returned to see that this discussion continues. Denise has been interviewed on Christian TV shows, and is has been quoted and referenced by different pro-life sites around the world, (as is demonstrated by the citings throughout her Wikipedia page) which means that the International pro-life and Christian communities recognize her as a credible speaker and personality. She has been an international speaker at the United Nations and was one of the three speakers in the film Jessica Yu's "Misconception" cited in the wikipedia article, Jessica Yu is a recognized director and writer. The United Nations itself is surely a credible source for indicating who is an international speaker. Also, she has been recognized as an International speaker by the CHP Canada. CHP Canada is a Canadian National Political Party. Along with that, we have ordered a copy of the CBC documentary and it is in the mail, but I am not sure how to cite that information since they don't have it listed on their website. If someone could help me there, I would gladly post the information as soon as I can get it. Also, there are notices of her being a guest speaker at different events including an event at the University of Ottawa. It is clear that you all have disregarded Life Site News as a source, yet they are a go to news source for those who care about the fate of the unborn. I am not sure what other credible sources you want. If you have any suggestions I would appreciate hearing them.Bushost (talk) 06:29, 10 February 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.22.82.18 (talk)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arfæst   Ealdwrítere  22:26, 10 February 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.