Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/James Audain


 * 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:35, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

James Audain

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Biography of a writer and unsuccessful election candidate, not referenced to any reliable source coverage about him to demonstrate that he passes either WP:AUTHOR or WP:NPOL. The "references" here are a glancing acknowledgement of his existence at the end of a biographical blurb about his father, which is cited only to support that James served in the army, and a raw table of the results of the election he didn't win (which is not a source that can assist the notability of an unsuccessful election candidate -- it can verify the vote totals in an article about a candidate who was already notable for other reasons, but it can't make a candidate notable because candidate per se.) Writers don't get an automatic free pass over AUTHOR just because their books exist, either -- we still need reliable source coverage about him and his writing before a writer becomes a notable writer. And I can't find any stronger sources that would bolster the case for inclusion, either. Bearcat (talk) 20:05, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Baby miss  fortune 14:23, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Baby miss  fortune 14:25, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Baby miss  fortune 14:25, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Baby miss  fortune 14:25, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. Baby miss  fortune 14:26, 8 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Notable son - Michael Audain as well as grandfather (James Dunsmuir). If he is notable - it would be per AUTHOR (POL and SOLDIER clearly not relevant) -  Coal Mine to Castle: The Story of the Dunsmuirs of Vancouver Island is quoted quite a bit.Icewhiz (talk) 15:44, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
 * People don't get articles just because they happen to have notable relatives, because notability is WP:NOTINHERITED, so Michael and James are irrelevant to the matter. You're correct that his notability claim, if he has one, would have to stand on AUTHOR — but we'd need to see better sources to support that than I've been able to find, and can't just hand him an automatic freebie just because his books exist. Bearcat (talk) 16:37, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I did not claim his progeny or ancestors make him notable - it is relevant in terms of looking for sources (notability is NOTINHERITED, however coverage by RS sometimes is). Coal Mine to Castle: The Story of the Dunsmuirs of Vancouver Island passes WP:NBOOK from what I see. The Courage to Change The Things We Can quite possibly . For Alex Dunsmuir's Dilemma and My Borrowed Life - I see passing mentions, probably need Canadian newspaper archives to really see if it was covered.Icewhiz (talk) 17:02, 8 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete, not notable for stand alone article. Trivial in relationship to others above and Wikipedia is not a newspaper. Kierzek (talk) 16:44, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete - notability is not inherited.--Rpclod (talk) 00:27, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep -- Audain's novel is one of only a few about the inner workings of a world wide organization that makes a positive impact in twenty million people's lives and yet remains wildly misunderstood. His notability rests not in the coverage of the novel, but in its topic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Riseley (talk • contribs) 06:20, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
 * That has no relevance to Wikipedia notability. Please see WP:ANYBIO.  If you want to write an article about the subject's novel's topic, go for it.  But the topic's notability is not inherited by the novel, much less the subject.--Rpclod (talk) 17:58, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Every single person who writes anything at all could always claim that their work was a "special case", which should be exempted from having to satisfy normal notability standards because the topic they wrote about was such an important one. That's actually one of the most common arguments that people attempt in defense of poorly sourced articles about writers — but it's not one that carries any weight in the absence of reliable source coverage about the writer in his or her own right. Having an article about every single person who ever published a book at all, regardless of their sourceability or lack thereof, is not our goal — for any writer on any topic, it's the media coverage that has to tell us that the writer's work is considered important, not one Wikipedia editor with an agenda. Bearcat (talk) 17:02, 12 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete I am very much a supporter of the cause of AA, but I see no way that the subject writing a novel of about people in AA makes him in any way notable. The sources are not enough for notability, and defeated candidates for public office are not generally notable. We do have far too many sub-par articles on people who actually held public office at present.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:46, 13 February 2018 (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.