Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Janine Krieber


 * 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 keep. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:39, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Janine Krieber

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

WP:BLP of a person whose primary claim of notability is that she's married to a former Canadian political party leader. Notability is not inherited, however, so a person doesn't get an article just because she's married to someone who has one, but there's no real indication here that she has any standalone notability as an academic. Bearcat (talk) 04:00, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 04:04, 26 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete the spouse of a party leader is not inherently notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:33, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:45, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:45, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:45, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep. I agree with JPL (for once): spouses of party leaders are not automatically notable. They can become notable, however, by having enough in-depth coverage devoted specifically to them rather than to their being the spouse of someone else. And finding that coverage can be made more difficult by all the non-notable coverage about being a spouse. But in this case, I think she passes, with sources like (national-level long-form TV interview),  (local but in-depth, mentioning her husband only in passing),  (national, one of several pieces in multiple media sources about something she wrote),  (passing coverage of a panel she participated on, but doesn't even mention her husband when describing who she is),  (in French, looks to be more in-depth on some of Krieber's views; she's extensively quoted; again, Dion not mentioned). Not to mention tons of coverage explaining who she is in the context of being Dion's wife (for example) – if that were the only coverage we would have BIO1E issues but it's not, so it counts. I think she passes WP:GNG, even though she appears not to pass WP:NPOL and WP:PROF. —David Eppstein (talk) 08:38, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep User:David Eppstein writes exactly as I was going write.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:00, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep. While I do not think she passes WP:PROF, I do think she meets the more general WP:BIO.--Eric Yurken (talk) 01:54, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   10:12, 3 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.