Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Suzanne Cowan


 * 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 no consensus. The subject appears to have received sufficient coverage that would have, under many circumstances, demonstrated notability - but there appears to be a significant and unresolved disagreement as to the overall acceptability of interviews performed by third parties in terms of demonstrating notability. The marginal majority opinions, and superficially significant role the subject has seems to make a default to keep reasonable, though I would encourage more indisputable sourcing. ~ mazca  talk 01:18, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Suzanne Cowan

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Poorly referenced WP:BLP of a person notable primarily as the organizational president, but not the public leader, of a political party. This is a role that could potentially get her into Wikipedia if she could be sourced over WP:GNG for it, but not one that hands her an automatic inclusion freebie just for existing if the sourcing isn't up to snuff -- but there's only one reference being cited here, which is a start toward getting her over GNG but is not enough to carry her over the finish line all by itself. If a person doesn't have an automatic pass of any SNG (e.g. by actually serving in the House of Commons as an actual elected MP), then they need considerably more than just one source to pass the "notable because media coverage exists" test. So no prejudice against recreation in the future if somebody can do better than this, but nothing here is good enough as written to get her in the door. Bearcat (talk) 23:40, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 23:40, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 23:40, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:27, 14 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep Although this article does not have enough references, a Google News search brings up many references to her. This article just needs to be improved with more content and references. Peter303x (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:58, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
 * The notability test is not whether her existence gets namechecked by "references to her" in articles about other things. The notability test requires sources in which she is the subject of the coverage, and a Google News search does not bring up anywhere near enough sources that clear that bar. Bearcat (talk) 15:01, 16 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep The subject is the current president of not just of any organization but the Liberal Party of Canada, which holds the majority of seats in one chamber of the national parliament and is also the party of the current prime minster Justin Trudeau. I agree with the nominator that surprisingly there is not that much individual coverage about her. However, I found the following sources relatively fast: 123 This should make her pass WP:GNG. - wikitigresito (talk) 02:32, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
 * There is no role that a person can hold that is so "inherently" notable that she's exempted from having to be the subject of enough media coverage to pass WP:GNG for the holding of that role. But the sources you've shown are not getting her there: #3 is a Q&A interview in which she's talking about herself, which is not a notability-assisting source; #2 mentions her name in the process of being primarily about something else, which is not a notability-assisting source; and while #1 does count for more than the other two, it doesn't magically count for enough all by itself as the article's only counting-for-anything source: she has to be the subject of multiple sources, not just the subject of one and then glancingly namechecked in others, to clear GNG. Bearcat (talk) 15:00, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   20:16, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete the keep votes above seem to assume notability, but all of the sources I can find on her are pretty run-of-the-mill (local woman running to be party leader, et cetera.) I think she could pass WP:GNG at some point but right now it's WP:TOOSOON. SportingFlyer  talk  20:27, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment I see her name mentioned quite often with a couple of sentences about her. Wasn't it possible to combine multiple sources counting as one, to establish notability? Also, I thought interviews could count, depending on the circumstances. wikitigresito (talk) 01:37, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I've heard it said that interviews don't count as far as notability, but I've never seen a link to any guidelines which say so. Lonehexagon (talk) 21:59, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Interviews in which she's speaking about herself can be used for supplementary verification of stray facts after notability has already been covered off by sources written in the third person by third parties — but because they represent the subject speaking about herself, they can't be used as evidence of base notability in and of themselves if they're the best sources on offer. Bearcat (talk) 18:15, 21 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep I added more info and sources to the article and I believe it now passes WP:GNG for significant coverage in secondary sources. For example, CBC Canada did an interview with her, and there is significant coverage in The Chronicle Herald, and The Hill Times. Given that she was just elected President a few weeks ago, it seems she will only get more press as time goes on. I don't see any reason to delete this article at this time. Lonehexagon (talk) 21:51, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Interviews are not evidence of notability in and of themselves. They're valid for additional verification of facts after notability has already been properly demonstrated by better sources — but they do not constitute evidence of notability in their own right, because they represent the subject speaking about herself and are thus subject to all of the same problems as self-published sources (i.e. the interviewee won't necessarily get factchecked if they lie about or misrepresent stuff.) Bearcat (talk) 18:19, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Well, you seem to equate interviews with primary sources which is not exactly the case, because interviews published on serious platforms are conducted by someone independent of the subject, i.e. they receive outside input and obviously false or misleading claims are likely to result in critical follow-up questions. However, I admit that in this case the interview is not that strong for establishing notability but I wouldn't say it does not count at all. What about my question regarding combining multiple sources to count as one? wikitigresito (talk) 05:08, 22 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep Clearly notable. FloridaArmy (talk) 23:22, 17 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.