Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Justin Friesen


 * 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. Keep opinions mostly consist of WP:WAX or WP:NOTINHERITED arguments.  Jujutacular  talk 03:44, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Justin Friesen

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Non-notable individual lacking GHits and GNEWS of substance. Article also lacks adequate reliable secondary sources. Article fails WP:BIO.  ttonyb (talk) 20:32, 27 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep - A few comments: 1. Individual's Environmental work does not have "new" GHits and GNEWS info due to the work taking place in 2002. Does it not count to have historically relevant material? I believe work done before Google's notability is just as valid. There are articles, they are just dated. 2. There is little evidence of the article being valid for deletion according to Deletion policy, other than your use of the term "Non-Notable", which is your subjective opinion.


 * Also, as per the Secondary Sources - are official Government and United Nations articles not reliable?? Yohowithrum (talk) 20:53, 27 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment – 1. I am not sure what you mean by, "...does not have "new" GHits and GNEWS info due to the work taking place in 2002."  There is plenty of pre-2002 material on Google.  Google does not only index material related to post-2002 events or items.  If there are references to support the article the date is not relevant; however, their meeting WP:RS is a requirement for their use.  2. The nomination is not an subjective opinion, it is an application of the criteria in WP:BIO and the lack of "non-trivial" reliable sources to support the article. In addition, the article you point to as reliable reliable sources are "non-trivial" in nature, they only reference the subject of the article in passing.   ttonyb  (talk) 21:45, 27 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete, references do not establish notability; in fact most of them date back to non-notable activities in his childhood. Hairhorn (talk) 00:36, 28 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep Could you perhaps explain why an article (with no references) like this one: Will Bowes, (another Canadian actor) have never been tagged for speedy deletion or suggested for deletion? Also, what is even your point to delete this person? Is it that imperative? 99.253.248.128 (talk) 00:49, 28 March 2011 (UTC) — 99.253.248.128 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Comment – There are a number of articles that probably need to be deleted for lack of references; however, that article has no bearing on this AfD.See WP:WAX for more detail. The point of nominating this article for deletion is it fails to meet Wikipedia criteria for inclusion.   ttonyb  (talk) 00:54, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment - I have nominated Will Bowes for deletion as I agree it does not meet notability standards either. Sea photo Talk  02:51, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Comment It has a bearing if it is an example of the randomness of your deletion method. You just saw it as a new article and that it is a biography, and then slapped the deletion on it. Will Bowes' article survived just due to the fact that you didn't slap a deletion on it in 2007 when it was created. It seems so pointless to delete articles. I come onto WikiPedia to add and edit, I never saw anything wrong with adding a new page to contribute to this beautiful online encyclopedia. Yohowithrum (talk) 00:58, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Comment @Hairhorn - Is a speech delivered to a UN General Assembly, which has been included in the official reports of the UN non-notable? http://books.google.com/books?id=ofOwJY3WNzcC&pg=PA111&dq=%22Justin+Friesen%22&hl=en&ei=Z96PTZatA4_EgAeLn9jKAg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=4&ved=0CDYQ6AEwAzgK#v=onepage&q=%22Justin%20Friesen%22&f=false Yohowithrum (talk) 01:05, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Please have a look at notability. Notability is based on coverage, not on a list of accomplishments. Hairhorn (talk) 14:04, 28 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete - lack of third party, verifiable sources to establish notability in any of the categories he would be eligible; actor, director, musician or activist. Making a film does not automatically make one notable (see WP:FILMMAKER), nor does giving a speech. I don't see any evidence of notability regarding the music or acting. If this changes in the future the article can be recreated without prejudice.  I will look at the other article mentioned to see if is a candidate for an AfD.   Sea photo Talk  02:21, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete: The Keep arguments are not only completely unconvincing, they're scarcely there at all, consisting more of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS than anything else. Yohowithrum, the GNG requires that a reliable source be (a) independent of the subject, and (b) discuss the subject in "significant detail."  That he gave a speech is all very well and good, but that doesn't establish notability.  Someone delivering a speech to the General Assembly about Friesen would be more to the point.   Ravenswing  09:49, 28 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep - The environmental work is clearly notable. Its well explained in Google searches. The film work is infrequent but he does have connections to Ellen Page, Devon Bostick and Will Bowes. 141.117.28.104 (talk) 19:43, 31 March 2011 (UTC) — 141.117.28.104 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:28, 29 March 2011 (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.