Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/JoJo Savard


 * 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. &mdash;SW&mdash; verbalize 21:43, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

JoJo Savard

 * – ( View AfD View log )

All of the sources are from non-reliable sources, most of them are clearly by the same person, (and I've already removed some of the article for being clear cut and paste). This person dosen't appear to be notable as covered by valid sources.  S ven M anguard  Wha?  13:39, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Tentative keep I can't speak for the content issues (I created this as a tiny stub), but the MacLean's article archived at the Canadian Encyclopedia is certainly a reliable source. Articles about notables who a) where not world-famous and b) came to their most notable before the Internet Era are fatally going to be harder to source. I suspect a search in a good Newspaper database (e.g. eureka.cc) will be required to push this article to an acceptable level. Circéus (talk) 14:36, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep. The article is currently an indulgent, promotional trainwreck, but the subject is notable. In addition to the Canadian Encyclopedia entry, a quick G-search showed several newspaper and magazine articles about her (most in French). Sasata (talk) 14:49, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
 *  Tentative Keep . As pointed out, the article needs work -- a lot of it. It's not quite as easy for me as it was for Sasata to find these newspaper and magazine articles, but the subject does seem to have a rather strong presence on the internet, so they could be out there. As it seems to me that Circéus is the author of the article, maybe they could attempt to improve the article with better refs? OldGeorgie (talk) 16:19, 15 March 2012 (UTC) Blocked as a sock puppet of WizardlyWho. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:01, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep Needs work per above, but in addition to the considerable coverage in Canadian news over several years I have found some indication of coverage in the United States from the Boston Globe, to note one source. Problem appears to be that the coverage is mostly from the 90's and often behind paywalls.--The Devil&#39;s Advocate (talk) 22:44, 15 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep - Savard peak of fame predates the widespread use of the internet. The sourcing is behind pay walls but clearly exists as seen by these examples:, , , . -- Whpq (talk) 16:27, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 01:00, 17 March 2012 (UTC)


 * This is going to get kept anyways (ignoring the sock, there are four keep votes and none for deletion), but I'm going to let it run the full course in the vain hope that someone will fix this mess.  S ven M anguard   Wha?  16:37, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:37, 23 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Relisting comment. There might be some copyright issues here. This article was recently "spammed up" by User:People deserve the truth (a username that sets off alarms) and some of his text looks like close paraphrasing from her website. However, reverting to a previous version leaves us with an unsourced BLP. This needs to be looked over by someone who's a better editor then I am. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:43, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
 * It needs to be rewritten. I suspect, based on his writings, that Alastair Lennox is a PR worker in JoJo's employ, and this is a case of reliable source farming (think license farming, and you get the idea). Leaving it as is would be tantamount to letting Lennox just write the article entirely, without sources.  S ven M anguard   Wha?  02:19, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I've reverted to a prior neutrally worded version of the article for the main body text. There sourcing is also rather suspect with almost all the sources coming from sites which allow people to post up articles.  Citizen journalism is fine, but I saw no evidence of any sort of editorial oversight or selection. I will also look at adding some proper sourcing to address the issue of it lacking proper sourcing for a biography of a living person. -- Whpq (talk) 14:31, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Note - sourcing has been added to the article referencing The Canadian Encycopedia, and some newspaper articles. The news articles are behind pay walls but I have added the relevant quote to the citation. -- Whpq (talk) 14:51, 23 March 2012 (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.