Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Johanna Leblanc


 * 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. Salvio giuliano 21:54, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

Johanna Leblanc

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

I have nominated this article for deletion due to concerns about notability. I see nothing notable about the subject in the article. Additionally, the article has virtually no legitimate secondary sources. Most of the sources are essentially blog posts. This is a sign that the subject is not notable. I searched Google for Ms. Leblanc and did not see legitimate secondary sources indicating that she is notable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by FiberTacos (talk • contribs)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Women, Law, Haiti,  and Florida.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 19:07, 18 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete, sources seems to be relegated to a couple of promotional university blog posts, as well as some times Leblanc has spoken to the media, but no actual coverage of her, meaning she fails GNG. Article is also heavily promotional Devonian Wombat (talk) 21:41, 18 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete she's penned a few articles, but there are no stories about her in RS. Working for famous people isn't GNG. Oaktree b (talk) 01:10, 19 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep not sure where the issue is, the sources are fine. I’ve seen articles with 2-3 sources and have only 1-2 paragraphs, why not delete those? Either way, not sure why a user with 10 edits wants the power to delete articles they perhaps don’t find interesting (or perhaps don’t relate to, as the subject is based outside of America). — Preceding unsigned comment added by StreetKnockerzEnt (talk • contribs) 12:45, 19 February 2023 (UTC)
 * This user's first (and currently only) contribution to WP is to oppose this requested deletion and make ad hominem attacks against me in the process. Very suspect. FiberTacos (talk) 18:22, 19 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I was mistaken on the lack of other contributions. FiberTacos (talk) 19:59, 19 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Perhaps, as someone whose entire history is more than 50% associated with this one article, you should be judicious with WP:SPA accusations? CT55555 (talk) 04:13, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete This person seems very accomplished based on the facts that I can find, but I can't find any independent sources of substance - the most interesting sources are all from the universities she graduated from, and the independent sources are all just short quotes or some such. I'll check back. Lamona (talk) 04:27, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Neutral: This is a borderline case. I can certainly see the argument for deleting this, but I am very concerned that a new, unregistered account has fixated on two articles (and only two articles) of subjects that apparently attended the same law school. This sends strong WP:SPA vibes.--IndyNotes (talk) 17:09, 20 February 2023 (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.