Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rosalie Cadron-Jetté


 * 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 Individual founded a religious order and is being considered for sainthood. Clearly notable.--- Balloonman  NO! I'm Spartacus! 17:53, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Rosalie Cadron-Jetté

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

This article was recently created and is completely unsourced. It it also not categorized, it is not part of any WikiProject and the person most surely is not notable.  Raa   G   gio  (talk)   04:39, 8 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Snow Keep - Rosalie Cadron-Jette, born 1794, died 1864, founder of the Misericordia Sisters’ Community of Montréal, who themselves run hospitals and Catholic universities throughout Canada. She is currently being considered by the Vatican for elevation to sainthood.  Many prominent Canadian buildings are named after her.  A non-profit organisation  is dedicated to her beatification.  Please note that "recently created", "unsourced", "not categorized", and "not part of any Wiki Project" are all invalid reasons for deletion and the phrasing of "most surely not notable" suggests the nominator hasn't undertaken any independent enquiry. - DustFormsWords (talk) 04:59, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Could you perhaps explain the logic behind voting "Snow Keep" being the first !vote? Aditya Ex Machina  15:37, 8 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete as nominator. Per WP:SET, I searched on Bing and the topic came up with a little more than 100 hits. (http://www.bing.com/search?q=%22Rosalie+Cadron-Jetté%22&go=&form=QBLH&qs=n&sk=). Therefore, I assumed the topic was not that noteworthy. But in reality, I nominated the article for AfD because the article has absolutely not one reference to source the prose nor to prove notability. After further research, she has a certain popularity, but I still believe she isn't notable enough for an article (however, her organization might be notable enough). However, because of the few links on the internet, I doubt reliable sources would be easy to obtain.   Raa   G   gio  (talk)   05:29, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep I wouldn't say snow keep, but there are sources such as and  in addition to numerous societies pushing for her bonification.  I'm not sure if those other sources count, but these two should establish notability, and there are plenty of other sources to back up tasks.  Keep in mind this is not a WP:BLP. NativeForeigner Talk/Contribs/Vote! 05:48, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but those two links you posted have absolutely no information. How does that establish any notability, let alone verifiability?   Raa   G   gio  (talk)   05:59, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment - ManicSpider and I are doing some work on the article; she's clearly notable so we may as well go ahead and fix it into something worthy of Wikipedia. Limited time so it might look a little "under-constructiony" in the next day or so. - DustFormsWords (talk) 06:22, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep As per WP:N, I believe that there she has recieved signficant coverage in reliable sources. The number of books that have a section on her is quite large, though some of them are in French so it will take me a bit to look at those ones. I'm struggling to understand this nomination as she seems to have had a huge impact on Canadian charitable organisations. Even as recently as 1993 (I think, it's in French again) they were naming houses dedicated to the care of unwed mothers after her. The article really does need some work though.ManicSpider (talk) 06:35, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep' Largely per Dustformswords and Manicspider. Also the appropriate response to an uncategorised article is either to categorise it as I have partially done, or to slap uncategorised on it (I'm sure there's a category out there for RC candidates for sainthood).  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers  07:03, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. Largely per above.  -  F ASTILYsock (T ALK ) 07:25, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. Clearly not-unsourced, the article has three sources, it's enough for sources and it's also part of two WikiProjects now as well as part of four categories, and is notable. I think you nominated the article too early, wait for the article to grow. --Andromedabluesphere440 (talk) 07:42, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep: substantial coverage in multiple reliable sources, which can be found by e.g. a Google news archive search, show that the article's subject is clearly notable. Gonzonoir (talk) 08:39, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Snow Keep It's all been said. Please close. Doc Quintana (talk) 12:52, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment- I did not nominate the article for deletion because it was uncategorized or because it didn't belong to any project. I nominated it because it failed WP:N and WP:RL. The comments above about not being in a category or project are because of Criteria for speedy deletion. (I assumed the lack of category was because of non-importance). Also, I nominated the article for deletion before any sources were provided. However, viewing the sources, I see that there are very few of them and they peak very little about the subject and most of them pretty much supply the same information. Can anyone supply a reference that proves substantial notability?   Raa   G   gio  (talk)   12:56, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep and Close The nomination was clearly an error. Warrah (talk) 13:21, 8 April 2010 (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.