Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tristan Emmanuel


 * 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, which generally defaults to a keep, but in this case, we have the added element of the subject wishing the article to be deleted. That has an effect on what action to take. According to the current deletion policy:
 * Discussions concerning biographical articles of relatively unknown, non-public figures, where the subject has requested deletion and there is no rough consensus may be closed as delete.

The outcome therefore hinges on whether Emmanuel is a "relatively unknown, non-public figure". After reviewing the discussion, I gather that Emmanuel has been the leader of political rallies and run for public office. It is difficult to conciliate those activities, where public attention is sought, with Emmanuel being a "non-public figure". Since Emmanuel's political activity make him a public figure, the "no consensus" outcome here is defaulting to keep.

While I realize the outcome may be controversial, after I feel that it is justified by "strength of arguments", the "keep" side of the discussion have provided a deeper argument, including numerous references covering Emmanuel's political activity. The delete arguments have presented the subject's desire for deletion along with an assertion of non-notability as the only reason for deletion, and the coverage by national-level newspapers has not been adressed by them. Sjakkalle (Check!)  15:41, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Tristan Emmanuel

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

My attention was brought to this article by the subject. In reviewing the article and making adjustments wrt his concerns, I realized he didn't appear particularly notable. In doing a Google search, I don't find many RS. The first reliable result that is focused on him is on page 2 of the search and reads "Reverend Tristan Emmanuel is not a household name nor an important player in the evangelical community." G-News hits brings some things up, but I wasn't sure. However, today I received an email via OTRS from the subject expressing his desire for the article to be deleted. Lara 17:00, 25 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete - seems utterly non-notable. Also, as the subject requests deletion, and as it's marginal, it should be deleted. The encyclopedia is not going to be the worse-off for its absence. While I personally dislike this guy's stance on ... just about everything :p - objectively, there's just not the notability here to have it kept - A l is o n  ❤ 18:22, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. Notability is marginal at absolute best, and per Deletion_guidelines_for_administrators weight should be given to the wishes of the subject. Kevin (talk) 22:12, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - Minor party candidate in by election? not notable. And certainly not notable enough to keep against subject wishes. ++Lar: t/c 02:59, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Tristan Emmanuel is a significant organizer among social conservatives in Canada. He organized a 2003 rally in support of the American invasion of Iraq, and had several prominent federal and provincial politicians attend as speakers.  In the same year, he organized several forums among social conservatives who were opposed to same-sex marriage and to the extension of federal hate crimes legislation to encompass gays and lesbians (one newspaper report from 2003 indicates that he organized at least fifteen such forums in various urban centres).  In 2005, he organized several rallies in opposition to same-sex marriage across Canada (and in the process influenced several Conservative Party nomination meetings).  More recently, he was the chief organizer for Randy Hillier in the latter's bid for the leadership of the Progressive Conservative Party of Ontario.  By any fair definition, Emmanuel is a public figure and a fair subject for an article.  I should add that someone claiming to be Tristan Emmanuel recently attempted to remove certain passages from the article page, using arguments that I found to be less than convincing .  I am not opposed to deleting the biographical pages of truly marginal figures whose future prospects may be hindered by past utterances, but Tristan Emmanuel is not a marginal figure.  He received extensive media coverage in 2003 and 2005-06, and the fact that most of the articles in question no longer turn up in Google searches is quite beside the point.  I'm certainly not in favour of removing sourced, accurate and relevant information that a notable subject finds inconvenient.  In response to Lar: Emmanuel's notability does not derive from his electoral record, but from his organizational work.  Since you've mentioned it, however, I should note that the standard practice is to redirect entries for failed political candidates to centralized list pages.  If the consensus view is that Emmanuel is non-notable, the proper course of action would be to summarize and redirect the page, not to delete it.  In response to the nominator, I can only say that Richard Viguerie isn't a household name either, but no one familiar with his efforts in the public sphere would deny his notability.  CJCurrie (talk) 04:37, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep: Per CJCurrie. While he may not be a household name, I have no doubts about the notability of this person, and the article seems well referenced. His notability derives from the political sphere, but not from his electoral record. DigitalC (talk) 16:27, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Follow-up comment: This article in the Georgia Strait counters the idea that he isn't notable, describing him as one of Canada's "most politically active social conservatives" DigitalC (talk) 16:33, 27 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions.  —'''DigitalC (talk) 16:33, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep per CJCurrie, DigitalC and the Georgia Straight. His various activities as political candidate, organizer and author cumulate to mkae him notable even if the activities individually may not (although I think CJC has addressedt hat effectively.) Ground Zero | t 19:27, 27 October 2009 (UTC).
 * Delete per Alison, Kevin, and Lar especially with regards their accurate comment relating to our keeping this minor biography against the subject's wishes. I have also read the strongly put request by CJCurrie to keep - however I say (without attempting to or hopefully actually upsetting that editor) that I have noted in the edit history of the article a continuing argument between CJCurrie and what appears to be the subject in regards to claims about the subject's COI.  Whilst I generally can respect CJCurrie's concern about COI, I am left with a strong feeling that there is a degree of ownership by him over this article which does not take into account the subject's reasonable wishes. In a nutshell whilst I respect the defence of an article by editors so interested I think in this case that level of defence has moved beyond a healthy encylopedia driven response.-- VirtualSteve  need admin support? 21:35, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Question pertaining to the previous post: in light of the recent changes, is the subject of the article still insistent on its deletion? CJCurrie (talk) 22:05, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I should clarify my reason for asking this question: I've recently made a number of adjustments to the article, taking into account the subject's prior complaints. Given that the subject did not make a request for deletion until a few days ago, and that the conditions under which he made this request no longer exist, I am curious as to whether or not he still believes the page should be removed.  CJCurrie (talk) 23:40, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I will email him to ask. Thank you. Lara  00:44, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
 * He said he's traveling and will review and respond Friday. Lara  16:12, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Has he responded yet? CJCurrie (talk) 07:12, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes. I've just checked. He said he reviewed the changes and still wishes to proceed with the deletion discussion. Lara  15:54, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete We should absolutely honor the subject's request. —  Jake   Wartenberg  22:49, 27 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete - I see no reason not to honor the wishes of the person who the article is about; especially if they aren't truly that notable. Coffee  //  have a cup  //  ark  // 06:05, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
 * keep - while not a household name in the US, he seems notable enough. This is the sort of article however that can run into trouble with negative information, as the subjects views are not popular amongst large sections of modern western society.  and I would urge all editors who vote keep to watchlist and be vigilant for extraneous crap.  --Rocksanddirt (talk) 16:50, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. Well sourced, notable. -- Earl Andrew - talk 06:13, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
 * keep The individual is a willing public figure so his personalpreference in regards to having an article or not should not be given weight. It is much more reasonable to consider courtesy deletion for private figures. A well known political activist is clearly not a private figure. We also have enough sourcing to meet WP:BIO so the article should be kept. JoshuaZ (talk) 01:40, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. Clearly notable, as is evidenced by the profile of him in Canada's national newspaper, the Globe and Mail (cited in the article), and by his recent role in the leadership race for the Conservative Party of Ontario (the second largest party in Canada's largest province). His own preference to not have an article, as JoshuaZ notes, should not be relevant to our decision.   Buck  ets  ofg  15:14, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. The numerous references show, cumulatively, pretty clear notability. The subject’s apparent desire to not have an article about themself should carry no weight here. The key here, as with all such articles, is to ensure that WP:BLP is being followed, which the well-cited content of the articles seems to do. —GrantNeufeld (talk) 16:08, 1 November 2009 (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.