Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Iris Almeida-Côté (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.

The result was no consensus. If we closed AfDs by wordcount, the deletes would comfortably have it. Otherwise, the discussants were evenly split on whether enough sources are available, and further discussion seems unlikely to reach a consensus. –&#8239;Joe (talk) 16:55, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

Iris Almeida-Côté
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

The subject of the article is a minor administrator, and the article is not of any noteworthiness or interest to general Wikipedia users.

She ran (and lost by a landslide 45%) in a minor election (municipal councilor) which hardly qualifies her as a politician.

Her biography reads as a self-serving CV and doesn't really offer much insight into her platforms, accomplishments etc. in these roles.

Having a masters degree or even 2 is something many people have (some even hold multiple doctorates).

She is currently involved in another election (CIRA) which is a minor administrative body somewhat regulating the .ca domain. Nevertheless, having a Wikipedia entry gives the appearance of notability which may unfairly bias the election.

There are numerous unverifiable, broken citations.

The article arbitrarily and artificially divides into a post 2006 section -presumably to give the illusion of credibility.

Furthermore, the bodies that she is listed as having a leadership role in are also minor and themselves linked to contentious articles, for example: 1) Canada World Youth, is listed as having multiple issues, the article itself reading as almost a non-informative stub, 2) International Cooperation for Development and Solidarity which is itself classed as a stub. Furthermore, in the latter case, her name does not appear in any search characteristic of the organization's website and is essentially unverifiable by virtue of age. The current organizational chart does not even list her old position, and it certainly is not in the list of decision makers, so doubtful that she was in a "leadership role" as suggested. 3)The same applies for her position with PAC. The Globe & Mail article referenced is not findable through their website or any www archive, and citing the roles she played from it seems more like a job duty list on a resume than of use in this Wikipedia article. Her comments regarding Rwanda are larger and perhaps more fitting the relevancy of a Wikipedia article, however they too read more like an op ed piece and no consequence/outcome is given as a result of the comments.  4) Canadian Pensions and Benefits Institute, despite it's grandiose name is a not-for-profit that has as its article a stub. On the linked website, under past presidents for the time period 2006-9, she is listed as CEO simply reads "Jane Doe". There is no mention of her contributions on the website. 5) Her next endeavour, Canadian Society of Association Executives, is also stub-classed with no external link to verify (citation #9 fails). 6) Her next role is mis-cited (in #10) and is equally unverifiable per their website. 7) Citation #11 (next role) is equally broken.

The rest of the roles/citations haven't been investigated yet, but the gist is sufficient; even if the handful of administrative roles she's had are correct, they do not reflect notability and are far too minor (the quotes being far too detailed) to be of broader relevance. This would be no different than citing anyone's CV and attributing quotes from them. The content of the quotes are non-controversial sound bytes that add very little in the way of discussion points. There is no comment of her worth as a person, or value of her career or contributions, but if we were to include every minor administrator who carries any secretarial role, Wikipedia would become overly bloated. Mellofellow (talk) 19:59, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 20:21, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 20:21, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 20:21, 6 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep Almeida-Côté has received credible national media coverage over a period of several years and has received significant recognition from Canadian academic and media institutions. The article itself is properly sourced. It's true that her defeat in a recent municipal election doesn't make her notable; neither does it nullify her notability. The fact that some of the organizations she once led don't have more than stub articles on Wikipedia isn't valid grounds to delete this article, and the fact that she's involved in a CIRA election is, really, neither here nor there. CJCurrie (talk) 22:58, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Note that she appears to have used "Iris Almeida" for many years. The first source in the article is a profile in the Montreal Gazette, and a search in gBooks in "Iris Almeida" brings up plausible-looking sources.E.M.Gregory (talk) 23:06, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep as has significant coverage in reliable sources such as major newspapers and book sources and therefore passes WP:Basic regards, Atlantic306 (talk) 11:45, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep Has received coverage from the media, and the article is also well sourced. Knightrises10 (talk) 13:19, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Weak Delete I'm really nervous about this one and will probably look into it more, but I can't find a single article on her in a before search that would make me think she passes WP:GNG with the exception of source #1. Source #1 exists and was a 14-sentence biography of her in the business section, so that's probably okay. Source #15 is not about her at all, just a passing mention. Most of the sources aren't linked, which scare me, and I don't see any which obviously jump out at me which cover her significantly from their title or text. All I see is a press release about her getting a new job. I'm not unhappy for someone to prove me wrong here, but I disagree this article is "properly sourced" at the moment. SportingFlyer  talk  06:41, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Part of the issue here is that some of the sources used in this article were published before the web was really a thing, and many of them aren't generally available online now. This doesn't invalidate them as sources, although I understand that not everyone will be able to confirm them. (FWIW, I used two different academic search engines when I created this article). If anyone else is able to review the sources, the Globe and Mail, Montreal Gazette, and National Post entries are the most important ones. CJCurrie (talk) 04:04, 11 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete To respond to a few points:
 * "...received credible national media coverage..." the context is important; we have no idea how much of the articles she took up, whether or not they were fluff pieces, or featured on buried pages, or sponsored, and moreover if the news was highly local of interest to only a few.


 * "...significant recognition from Canadian academic and media institutions."
 * Significant is contested. A few institutions perhaps, but Canadian institutions feature tens of thousands -if not more- featurettes on many people including students.  This does not go to significance.


 * "...neither does it nullify her notability."
 * I would say that it does. If the position in the election was of greater significance (e.g. mayor) I could see a defeat not nullifying it, however this is not the case.  Essentially this becomes overcategorization where we include all candidate names for even minor roles (win or lose).  Getting on a ballot is not an accomplishment and requires very little vetting.


 * "...some of the organizations she once led don't have more than stub articles on Wikipedia isn't valid grounds..."
 * It is most of the organizations. Strictly speaking yes, it is not valid grounds, but simply goes to show the magnitude/importance/relevance of the organizations.  This is relevant to further show her coverage is for non-importance.  If I was to create an article for myself and link it to organizations that are stubs, it would not give my article importance, though it gives the false appearance of credibility by virtue of number of alleged sources.  Under criteria 8,"Notability (organizations and companies)" the same criteria should be used to show her alleged organizations have received significant coverage.  Some have, some have not.


 * "...involved in a CIRA election is, really, neither here nor there."
 * It is relevant because of criteria 4.)"Advertising or other spam without any relevant or encyclopedic content". This qualifies as advertising given that there is an election.  Furthermore, "Self-promotion and publicity:
 * Publication in a reliable source is not always good evidence of notability. Wikipedia is not a promotional medium. Self-promotion, autobiography,..." would back this up. All the other candidates (26!) do not have profiles though many of them are far more accomplished and as or more covered than she is.  If we were to include them in wikipedia, that would add 26 more articles of little relevance, with 25 of them for non-winners.


 * Criteria 8 (notability) requires "...significant attention by the world at large and over a period of time..."; (general notability guideline) requires, "...that no original research is needed to extract the content...", but plenty of searching under both her names was required and returned many failures; (Notability (people)) requires, "...the person who is the topic of a biographical article should be 'worthy of notice' or 'note' – that is, 'remarkable' or 'significant, interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded' within Wikipedia as a written account of that person's life," I don't see her as standing apart, remarkable or unique. there is very little biographical information and her 2 masters degrees are unverifiable without extensive, intrusive personal research, requiring her permission.  I'm not sure if the author knows her or not, but even in a media source, it would be unlikely to have been verified. "The article title should define what the article is about. If there is enough valid content to fill an article about a person, then that person's name (such as "John Doe" or "Jane Doe") would be an appropriate title," clearly there is very little bio content -not nearly enough to fill/warrant an article.


 * This article is ripe for deletion based on criteria, 4, 7, 8, 11 and 14.


 * Mellofellow  talk  19:10, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

Lots of issues raised. Following upon a few them I couldn't find credible sources. It's true that some of the sources also don't link anywhere. If we take out this material, there's not much of an article left. So my chief concerns are notability and poor/weak sourcing. I'd suggest a rewrite at the very least. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Manfredethom (talk • contribs) 19:11, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete


 * 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.