Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michèle Audette


 * 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. (non-admin closure)  CAPTAIN RAJU  (✉)   05:25, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Michèle Audette

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

WP:BLP of an activist and unsuccessful political candidate, which isn't making or properly sourcing a genuinely strong claim of notability. There are claims here ("She was president of the Quebec Native Women (FAQ), then Canada's Aboriginal Women (NWAC).") that could get her an article if that was where the WP:WEIGHT of substance and sourcing were actually being placed, but this, as written, is fundamentally a campaign brochure about a political candidate, which just glancingly résumés her prior career background by listing jobs she happened to hold but failing to delve into any substance about anything she did in those jobs -- there's actually more substance here about her mother's activism than there is about hers, and the strongest GNG-worthy source in the entire article is just being used to support the name of her husband rather than any content that would actually be relevant to determining whether she passed a notability standard or not. Basically, this is a nuke and pave situation -- even if she can be shown as having sufficient notability as an activist, this article as written and sourced is not what it takes to get her there. Bearcat (talk) 01:48, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions.   CAPTAIN RAJU  (✉)   07:24, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions.   CAPTAIN RAJU  (✉)   07:24, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions.   CAPTAIN RAJU  (✉)   07:24, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Comment Clearly notable. Before nominating the article, sources should have been searched for and added to the article. 84.73.134.206 (talk) 18:51, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep - Looking at those articles in the link above, easily meets WP:GNG. Looks like a failure of WP:BEFORE. Nfitz (talk) 23:34, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Quebec-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:45, 2 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep, president of the Native Women's Association of Canada; WP:GNG satisfied; election not really given undue attention, discounting the table, and if it were, Template:Sofixit would apply. Ribbet32 (talk) 20:38, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep Being a failed candidate for office does not erase your existing notability. Audette meets WP:GNG and has been covered in-depth for her work. AusLondonder (talk) 00:12, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep There is a great deal of information on her - radio interviews, press. She is solidly notable and meets WP:GNG Netherzone (talk) 02:02, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
 * comment interesting that you should nominate this article, but not Khalil Ramal. could it be that there is some bias, in your targets of deletion? what standard of press coverage do you have, if any? Beatley (talk) 18:03, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
 * To be fair, Ramal is an MLA, and the bright line in the notability standards makes it clear that he'd be a keep. Audette is a keep based on WP:GNG but there is no bright line. Nfitz (talk) 11:29, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Khalil Ramal holds elected office, and so his notability is not up for any debate at all. Non-winning candidates are not extended the same automatic presumption of notability that the winners get — what has to be shown to make Audette notable enough for a Wikipedia article is a depth of press coverage about her activism that certainly may exist but wasn't shown in the article as written. Bearcat (talk) 13:09, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
 * If adequate sources exist but are not in the articlem there is no basis for a nomination. Surely have been found them when you did a normal Google search, a Google Books search, a Google News search, and a Google News archive search. Nfitz (talk) 20:45, 5 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep WP:GNG clearly met. Hmlarson (talk) 21:11, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep per GNG. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 21:11, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep: Meets WP:GNG. --Guy Macon (talk) 02:11, 8 May 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.