Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shauna Sylvester


 * 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. SoWhy 10:27, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

Shauna Sylvester

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

WP:BLP of a businessperson and as yet unelected mayoral candidate, whose claims of notability are "referenced" to primary sources rather than any evidence of reliable source coverage apart from one short blurb in one listicle. Neither businesspeople nor non-winning mayoral candidates get an automatic notability freebie just because their own self-published web presence technically verifies that they exist -- her professional career might get her over our inclusion standards if enough reliable source coverage about it in media could be shown to get her over GNG (her candidacy for mayor, conversely, does not assist in demonstrating encyclopedic notability in and of itself), but nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt her from having to pass GNG. No prejudice against recreation in November if she wins the mayoralty, but nothing here is enough to already get her an article today. Bearcat (talk) 17:42, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 17:43, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 17:43, 11 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete does not meet the notability guidelines for politicians.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:10, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

Hello. I completely disagree with the above assessment. I've worked alongside Shauna Sylvester in the past, but have no connection with her now. I can attest that she has been the subject of extensive media coverage for her work on energy dialogue issues, and she has won multiple awards for her contributions to the Centre for Dialogue. I will track some reliable source coverage and cite them in the article. Jamesglave (talk) 02:22, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Winning unspecified awards is not an automatic notability freebie. Some awards count as notability claims that clinch a person's wikinotability in and of themselves — an actor winning an Oscar or an Emmy or a CSA, a writer winning the Pulitzer or the Giller — but many other awards that exist do not. So a person is not guaranteed a Wikipedia article just because they've won awards — it depends what award, and how well the award can be reliably sourced. And "extensive media coverage for her work on energy dialogue issues" also depends on the quality of the sourcing — sources which glancingly namecheck her existence, or briefly quote her, in an article about something else are not the same thing, and do not support notability as strongly, as sources about her as a subject. And if you've worked with her in the past, you still have a direct conflict of interest regardless of whether you're still working with her now or not. Bearcat (talk) 17:51, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:38, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J04n(talk page) 18:45, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete. Essentially promotional with at no clear notability. An article listing a lot of minor accomplishments implies there are no major ones  DGG ( talk ) 20:09, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete. No claim to notability unless they win the mayoral election. ErieSwiftByrd (talk) 02:40, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep I improved the article with more information and citations. It now passes WP:GNG due to "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." She appears to be a significant candidate in a significant race that has received a lot of media attention. Lonehexagon (talk) 05:44, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Every mayoral race always generates media coverage in its own local media, so the number of citations shown here now does not constitute evidence that Shauna Sylvester's candidacy is special. If you cannot demonstrate that she was already notable enough for some other reason before becoming a candidate, then the simply expected volume of local media coverage does not magically get her over GNG in lieu of not passing NPOL. Every single mayoral candidate in every single place that has mayoral elections could always show at least as much coverage as this or more, but simply being a mayoral candidate is not an NPOL pass in and of itself for a person who didn't already have preexisting notability for other reasons — so showing that some media coverage of her campaign exists does not exempt her from having to pass NPOL, because every candidate would always get that same exemption if it were. The way to make a person notable just for being a candidate for office is to show a volume and range of coverage that singles her out as special, not a volume and range of coverage that's completely in line with what every candidate could always show. Bearcat (talk) 17:42, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   08:12, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete Fails WP:NPOL as an unelected candidate and WP:GNG as a businessperson. Does not pass a broader GNG guideline because of the above sources which were found - they all discuss her as a candidate. SportingFlyer  talk  04:19, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete- Fails WP:NPOL, if she actually goes on to win the race, this can be revisited.--Rusf10 (talk) 00:22, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete per DGG. Premature article. Husounde (talk) 05:26, 6 May 2018 (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.