- 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. Lots of verbiage here, but there seems to be a consensus that the coverage of Miles that exists is not sufficient to meet the WP:GNG, mainly on the basis that they were either trivial, primary sources, or inappropriately local. The only other major objection to deletion raised as an IAR-based argument that did not find wide support. No prejudice against redirecting the article, a proposal that was only brought up towards the end of the discussion but not widely considered. Lankiveil ( speak to me) 04:35, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
Jaclyn Miles
- Jaclyn Miles ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Miles is not notable. As was established in a recent discussion, at least since it was revived in 2009, the Miss Canada pageant has not been a pageant with wide attention that would grant default notability to the subject. A perusal of the sources here shows this. To gain coverage we go to thinks like a passing mention in a local paper of a local protest in which the subject is just mentioned because they are one of many protestors. There are none of the signs of indepth coverage that would show notability. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 17:59, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
- As Unscintillating pointed out below, this is the umpteenth AfD by the same nominator, consistently and purposefully ignores ATD, WP:BEFORE, and others, along with misleading intros. As such it should be closed as a procedural keep and brought before ANI. gidonb ( talk) 04:05, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 18:02, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 18:48, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 18:48, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
- Delete no claim of notability apart from being Miss Canada.
Power~enwiki (
talk) 05:24, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
- This opinion fails WP:IGNORINGATD and should be considered WP:JUSTAVOTE. The opinion was provided before national sources and more regional coverage were included. gidonb ( talk) 02:11, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
- Delete reluctantly: her organization
Breaking the Silence does not seem notable (and is not the
UK-based "Breaking the Silence" which was founded in 2004 by Kate Short.
Pam
D 11:46, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
- This opinion fails WP:IGNORINGATD and should be considered WP:JUSTAVOTE. The opinion was provided before national sources and more regional coverage were included and is confused on what has been nominated. gidonb ( talk) 02:11, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
- The claim of national sources are hogwash. They are passing mention of a parade, not indepth coverage of Miles. Piling on more local, Western Ontario coverage adds nothing to show that Miles is a notable figure. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 14:48, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
- Hi Pamd, this organization is just "Break the Silence". Without the ing. I totally agree that the organization isn't notable. Imho it should be seen as an activity she undertook. If the organization had an article, I would suggest redirecting it to the biography. However, there is no such page and this well-covered activity does count towards Miles's own notability. So it's actually a major strength. gidonb ( talk) 12:20, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
- Keep Meets WP:GNG. Known for different activities. I strongly disagree with the previous opinions that she is only known for being Miss Canada or that the fact that her organization is not notable in its own right is an impediment on the personal notability. Sourcing is good and relevant. It still contributes exactly the opposite way. The one weakness that I do see and want to point out is that all coverage is in a span of 3 years. gidonb ( talk) 11:56, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 08:50, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
- Comment AfD should be closed as procedural keep since nominator has been limited to 1 AfD per month and this is his second at just days distance. These AfDs do not resemble serious procedures that would dignify the topic or Wikipedia and follow the general format of so and so is just unnotable, claim that the many articles which were all about the woman were just passing mentions, daily newspapers with global, national and regional coverage are done away with as "local press" and there is some concentration on a document that was used to reference one of the facts and does not contribute to the general notability. Sure but then it wouldn't reduce the notability either. There were so of many of these that nominator has been restricted in submitting these "AfDs" (probably too much) but breaks with the community restrictions. In the other AfD a few days earlier, he just removed the entire article after it was found to be notable, then nominates it for deletion after being caught red handed. This entire series of AfDs needs some serious scrutiny.
gidonb (
talk) 15:41, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
- I'm willing to take over as nominator if necessary. Power~enwiki ( talk) 15:49, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
- The claim of Gidonb is false. The limit placed on me was 1 AfD created per every 24-hour period, not one per month. This procedural opposition has no grounding in fact, and ignored my arguments for why we should delete this article on an extremely localized figure. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 02:24, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
- Comment The reference in the lede to [1] is trivial, but founding an organization might be a claim of notability. I see no secondary coverage of "Break the Silence", and the only activity I can find on their website is that they sponsor an annual 5k run, which isn't sufficient. Power~enwiki ( talk) 15:49, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
- Comment There's a separate argument regarding Miss Canada. Winning Miss Canada doesn't guarantee that the winner is notable (the way that winning an Academy Award would), but is it (or should it be) a situation where winners who pursue a public profile are almost always notable?
Power~enwiki (
talk) 15:53, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
- The last one is actually a good point. I look at it, however, not from a pageant perspective because personally these shows (and tv in general) bore me to death. I look at the articles and their sourcing in their entirety and weigh if it is sufficient for notability. So the titles are out there now let's see if the person actually was covered. To your previous point, the coverage in "City approves trespass policy" is not trivial at all. It is an entire paragraph, plus the photo, plus its caption, plus the intro also draws our attention to the fact that Miles had spoken at the meeting. Thirdly, "Break the Silence" was an activity Miles undertook. If I understand correctly she had worked to fund it but was scammed out of some of the money and then had less budget=impact as it might have had. All that was covered in daily Canadian press which is pretty amazing. So this activity is not worthy of its very own article but definitely counting towards the general notability of Miss Miles. All her diverse human rights activities are. Now let's look at all 10 sources because without looking at the entiry we're going to make previous mistakes over and over again:
- Willick, Frances (August 9, 2010). "'A pageant with a cause'". Windsor Star. Retrieved June 15, 2013. Daily newspaper, Miles is the main subject of the article, counts towards notability
- Schmidt, Doug (May 27, 2013). "City approves trespass policy (With Video)". Windsor Star. Retrieved August 19, 2017. Daily newspaper, Miles is a subject in the article, counts towards notability
- Charron, Joel (February 28, 2012). "Miss Canada Jaclyn Miles speaks out". River Town Times. Retrieved June 15, 2013. Daily newspaper, Miles is the main subject in the article, counts towards notability
- "Jaclyn Miles – Miss Canada 2012". The Joy Smith Foundation. Retrieved June 15, 2013. Miles is the main subject in the article, does not count towards notability
- Belanger, Joe (April 21, 2013). ""If we valued life more than money maybe things would be different."". The London Free Press. Retrieved June 15, 2013. Daily press, Miles is the main subject in the article, counts towards notability
- Sims, Jane (June 7, 2013). "Tripped up in the tropics". The London Free Press. Retrieved June 15, 2013. Daily newspaper, Miles is a subject in the article, counts towards notability
- Sims, Jane (June 14, 2013). "Chris Bassoo says the government promised capital investment that never came for the Facebook tourism videos". The London Free Press. Retrieved August 19, 2017. Daily newspaper, Miles was a subject in the article, counts towards notability
- "Profile: Jaclyn Miles; Miss Canada – exhibiting strength and humility in abundance". Brescia University College. Retrieved August 19,2017. Miles the main subject in the article, does not count towards notability
- Carruthers, Dale (May 10, 2012). "Miss Canada speaks of abuse". The London Free Press. Retrieved August 18, 2017. Daily newspaper, Miles is the main subject in the article, counts towards notability
- Schmidt, Doug (December 13, 2012). "Miss Canada to lead Santa parade". Windsor Star. Retrieved August 19, 2017. Daily newspaper, Miles is the main subject in the article, counts towards notability
IN SUMMARY, out of 10:
- 8 are articles are in independent daily newspapers, 2 are on organizational websites
- In 7 articles she is the main topic, this include the 2 organizational articles, in 3 other she is a topic with significant coverage
So in summary we have 50% (!!!) main coverage in independent daily newspapers, 30% other significant coverage in the daily press, and 20% that is only used to verify fact in the article. gidonb ( talk) 16:32, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
- I don't believe notability works the way you think it works.
Power~enwiki (
talk) 16:34, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
-
Power~enwiki, actually this is exactly how it works. You look at the coverage that would count towards someone's notability, what is in it, what publications, did the journalists care to sign with their very own names (i.e. took pride in their work and the data in the article), was it one event, etc, and decide if it is sufficient. Analyze the strengths and weaknesses of the coverage. For example, the weakness that I see and mentioned in my opinion above is that the span of coverage is short. If one concentrates only on the articles that do not count towards notability, only tries to dismiss arguments of others, or claims that an article that has significant coverage does not have the same, one's opinion should get discounted. It is not late to take another look at the articles and subject, I understand also that the intro was "somewhat" misleading. We have dealt with that as a community.
gidonb (
talk) 17:05, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
- "Miss Canada to Lead Santa Parade" is not an article that adds towards the notability of someone, it is a warmed over press release. If everyone who was mentioned in the headline in their local paper as the person who was going to lead a parade was notable, then we would greatly increase the level of notability. Not one of the articles listed has a background that allows it to stand as a truly indeendent source. These are all local human interest stories, with the lone exception being the passing mention in an article on a protest that does not focus on her. Being briefly mentioned in an article on a protest is not enough to pass the general notability guidelines.
John Pack Lambert (
talk) 02:38, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
- No matter how silly your arguments get - you keep trying. That is special! This news item was carried by two national networks for very good reasons. It was a hot national Canadian news item: West Ontario celebrity trumped American celebrity. Also it is not nearly the only item that contributes to Miles' notability; there are tens of articles in regional daily newspapers in which she has significant coverage. I can't add all the sources. There are just too many!!! Anyone can check for themselves. gidonb ( talk) 01:45, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
- "Miss Canada to Lead Santa Parade" is not an article that adds towards the notability of someone, it is a warmed over press release. If everyone who was mentioned in the headline in their local paper as the person who was going to lead a parade was notable, then we would greatly increase the level of notability. Not one of the articles listed has a background that allows it to stand as a truly indeendent source. These are all local human interest stories, with the lone exception being the passing mention in an article on a protest that does not focus on her. Being briefly mentioned in an article on a protest is not enough to pass the general notability guidelines.
John Pack Lambert (
talk) 02:38, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
-
Power~enwiki, actually this is exactly how it works. You look at the coverage that would count towards someone's notability, what is in it, what publications, did the journalists care to sign with their very own names (i.e. took pride in their work and the data in the article), was it one event, etc, and decide if it is sufficient. Analyze the strengths and weaknesses of the coverage. For example, the weakness that I see and mentioned in my opinion above is that the span of coverage is short. If one concentrates only on the articles that do not count towards notability, only tries to dismiss arguments of others, or claims that an article that has significant coverage does not have the same, one's opinion should get discounted. It is not late to take another look at the articles and subject, I understand also that the intro was "somewhat" misleading. We have dealt with that as a community.
gidonb (
talk) 17:05, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 19:28, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 19:28, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
- Keep WP:IAR Canada is a nation of 35,000,000; and the article has multiple sources
, including some from England. Nomination does not appear to be aware of WP:BEFORE, WP:Deletion policy#CONTENT, WP:INSIGNIFICANCE, WP:ATD, and WP:IGNORINGATD, but the nominator should by now be well aware that if he believes that this topic is non-notable, deletion is not a policy-based option. So what does he believe? Why are we here? Unscintillating ( talk) 02:44, 24 August 2017 (UTC)- California has more people then Canada, yet we regularly delete articles on Miss California winners who do not meet our notability guidelines, so the opening is not really an argument. It also ignores the level of coverage of the contest itself. I was very aware of before, and performed a proper before search that showed no other significatn coverage. Having multiple sources alone does not make someone notable. Nor does extremely passing mention in the international press make someone notable. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 02:27, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
- Comment The above analysis of the sources is clearly flawed. That said, I am not sure that the claim by unscintillating that some sources from England is proved. What source exists that is from England? All the sources I see are local coverage from Canada. Not one constitutes substantial coverage in a reliable source that proves anyone cares about her outside the local area where she lives. College publications and local paper blurbs do not add towards notability. Put another way, if Miss Canada was truly something of note in Canada we would be seeing articles from across Canada about Miles. That is not what we see. All the listed articles are from publications in the western part of the Ontario peninsula. So unscintillating's claims about "sources from England" seem to be based on misunderstanding what London was referred to. Gibonb has made false claims about the limitations against my activity on Wikipedia, and has shown a clear lack of understanding of what does and does not add towards the general notability guidelines. We need something more than human insterest stories and press releases to demonstate notability. One more time, is Miss Canada was as notable a title as some claim, we would be able to find indepth articles on Miles when she won in major Canadian papers, in the same way the winner of Miss America gets covered is the press all over the US. This is not what we have here. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 02:34, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
- Your correct conclusion that I'd never heard of a town in Ontario of 400,000 people and their daily newspaper does not validate your straw men. Where was your WP:BEFORE D1 analysis that might have better prepared me? Why do you flee WP:IGNORINGATD like a vampire from a cross? It never adds up. Unscintillating ( talk) 15:39, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
- My wife has a special connection to London, Ontario so we had quickly driven in and out before en route to Toronto. In 2013 we finally spent a weekend there and I was even asked to give an impromptu presentation before a rather large audience. While the Thames of London, Ontario may be a bit of a disappointment after seeing the one in England, I have only pleasant memories from this city! gidonb ( talk) 02:54, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
- My analysis invalidates the ludicrous claims that there were sources from outside Canada. There is no obligation to give a full, item by item listing of every sub-standard source in an article in a deletion proposal. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 14:43, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
- I last edited this article on 2017-08-27T15:39:08, yet on 2 September here you are mocking a statement redacted long ago, as if this is important to you. You still have no argument for deletion, since WP:DEL7 does not exist in isolation of WP:ATD, and you are still WP:IGNORINGATD. Unscintillating ( talk) 23:32, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
- As stated at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2016 July 20, "Wikipedia deletion practice right back to Nupedia days has been based on the implicit assumption that 'if a significant number of people are likely to consider the topic important, it's generally important enough to warrant an article provided one can be written'...This [is] a straightforward statement of how Wikipedia functions". Unscintillating ( talk) 15:39, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
- Comment
CBC News and
CTV News are *not* news sources from Western Ontario but prime(time) nationwide Canadian news sources operating from
Toronto. I also stand behind every other statement made above. By structurally misleading the community JPL attempts and sometimes succeeds at removing articles.
gidonb (
talk) 19:17, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
- Passing mentions about who is leading a parade do not show that the person leading the parade is notable. Especially when they are last minute recruits to replace truly notable people. The CBC News and CTV News articles are about the parade, not Miles, and so add nothing to the notability of Miles.
John Pack Lambert (
talk) 14:46, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
- Your comments gets sillier every time! There is nothing passing about the articles referenced in the entry. For example, the national Canadian CTV Television Network article has 6 paragraphs on Jaclyn Miles, including a photo. This article is among the better referenced articles at Wikipedia and it would be a shame to throw such a well-referenced article away. Also there is nothing wrong with the people of Canada or of South Ontario. Happily married to a wife who is precisely from there, I should know! Ontario is home to 40% of the population of Canada so regional matters in Ontario are national matters (as we see in the national coverage of Miles), far more even then in California, the most populous state of the US that is home to just 12% of the Americans. Miles has been well covered and substantially covered in the national, regional and local Canadian press. There is much and much more but this should be enough referencing. It's already exceptional on a WP scale. gidonb ( talk) 20:45, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
- Passing mentions about who is leading a parade do not show that the person leading the parade is notable. Especially when they are last minute recruits to replace truly notable people. The CBC News and CTV News articles are about the parade, not Miles, and so add nothing to the notability of Miles.
John Pack Lambert (
talk) 14:46, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Second relist: Since this is a BLP
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Black Kite (talk) 18:33, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
Relisting comment: Second relist: Since this is a BLP
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Black Kite (talk) 18:33, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
- Comment not included yet in the article, but here is more significant coverage in one of Canada's main newspapers!!! (in addition to the the main television networks)
http://www.metronews.ca/news/2012/03/05/miss-canada-takes-on-domestic-abuse.html This is a major article entirely about Jaclyn Miles in the sixth most-read newspaper of Canada. This AfD is totally baseless and clueless, with an intro that disregards all our rules. It is a huge waste of time for the WP community. gidonb ( talk) 01:24, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
- Sorry I now see that it was carried by all the Metro editions (can be checked when comparing with the other item that was carried by the London edition), not just by the biggest one in Toronto. So the total readership is nearly twice that of the #1 newspaper in Canada. This piles up on and beyond the other distinguished newspapers and national television networks with significant coverage. gidonb ( talk) 02:00, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
- Delete The "significant article" reference provided by gidonb above fails
WP:BASIC as the vast majority of the article is a word-for-word interview with the subject and is a PRIMARY source. No indications of any substantive independent articles from secondary sources. Overall, topic fails criteria for notability.
-- HighKing
++ 16:44, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
- Actually the majority of this particular article is *not* an interview!
gidonb (
talk) 16:16, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
- Actually, it would be nice if you could follow the simple guidelines for formatting and indentation. And you are correct - not the majority but the *entire* article is *based* on an interview. The article uses a mix of direct quotes "in quotes", or statements directly attributed to Miles, or statements made to put the next "quote" in context but which were obviously part of the interview. The bottom line is my statement above is still correct. The references fails since it is not intellectually independent and a PRIMARY source, just like the other references. I believe you misunderstand the criteria for establishing notability if you believe that this source is good for that purpose. -- HighKing ++ 20:41, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
- Actually the majority of this particular article is *not* an interview!
gidonb (
talk) 16:16, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
- Comment John Pack Lambert claims without evidence that sources are not working as independent journalists. HighKing claims that the sources are not "intellectually independent" which simply means that the reporters are people living on the planet Earth with further connections to the topic.
Unscintillating (
talk) 23:32, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
- This is just a continuation of Unscintillating twisting what others say to advance his single minded attempts to preserve every article on a beauty queen ever. I never stated that the journalists were not indepdent, except for those publishing on college periodicals. What I did state was it was local coverage, or passing coverage, and thus not enough for notability. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 05:03, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
- Delete - Sources fail to meet the requirements for WP:INDEPTH; being Miss Canada also is not an instant claim to notability as John pointed out earlier. Perhaps I can be the first delete voter that isn't met with a big ol' mallet? TheGracefulSlick ( talk) 00:28, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
- Redirect to Miss Canada. I have no strong objection to keeping, but the case for notability is borderline. And {{ R to list entry}} is a valid alternative to deletion. NewYorkActuary ( talk) 12:25, 5 September 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.
- 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. Lots of verbiage here, but there seems to be a consensus that the coverage of Miles that exists is not sufficient to meet the WP:GNG, mainly on the basis that they were either trivial, primary sources, or inappropriately local. The only other major objection to deletion raised as an IAR-based argument that did not find wide support. No prejudice against redirecting the article, a proposal that was only brought up towards the end of the discussion but not widely considered. Lankiveil ( speak to me) 04:35, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
Jaclyn Miles
- Jaclyn Miles ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Miles is not notable. As was established in a recent discussion, at least since it was revived in 2009, the Miss Canada pageant has not been a pageant with wide attention that would grant default notability to the subject. A perusal of the sources here shows this. To gain coverage we go to thinks like a passing mention in a local paper of a local protest in which the subject is just mentioned because they are one of many protestors. There are none of the signs of indepth coverage that would show notability. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 17:59, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
- As Unscintillating pointed out below, this is the umpteenth AfD by the same nominator, consistently and purposefully ignores ATD, WP:BEFORE, and others, along with misleading intros. As such it should be closed as a procedural keep and brought before ANI. gidonb ( talk) 04:05, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 18:02, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 18:48, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 18:48, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
- Delete no claim of notability apart from being Miss Canada.
Power~enwiki (
talk) 05:24, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
- This opinion fails WP:IGNORINGATD and should be considered WP:JUSTAVOTE. The opinion was provided before national sources and more regional coverage were included. gidonb ( talk) 02:11, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
- Delete reluctantly: her organization
Breaking the Silence does not seem notable (and is not the
UK-based "Breaking the Silence" which was founded in 2004 by Kate Short.
Pam
D 11:46, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
- This opinion fails WP:IGNORINGATD and should be considered WP:JUSTAVOTE. The opinion was provided before national sources and more regional coverage were included and is confused on what has been nominated. gidonb ( talk) 02:11, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
- The claim of national sources are hogwash. They are passing mention of a parade, not indepth coverage of Miles. Piling on more local, Western Ontario coverage adds nothing to show that Miles is a notable figure. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 14:48, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
- Hi Pamd, this organization is just "Break the Silence". Without the ing. I totally agree that the organization isn't notable. Imho it should be seen as an activity she undertook. If the organization had an article, I would suggest redirecting it to the biography. However, there is no such page and this well-covered activity does count towards Miles's own notability. So it's actually a major strength. gidonb ( talk) 12:20, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
- Keep Meets WP:GNG. Known for different activities. I strongly disagree with the previous opinions that she is only known for being Miss Canada or that the fact that her organization is not notable in its own right is an impediment on the personal notability. Sourcing is good and relevant. It still contributes exactly the opposite way. The one weakness that I do see and want to point out is that all coverage is in a span of 3 years. gidonb ( talk) 11:56, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 08:50, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
- Comment AfD should be closed as procedural keep since nominator has been limited to 1 AfD per month and this is his second at just days distance. These AfDs do not resemble serious procedures that would dignify the topic or Wikipedia and follow the general format of so and so is just unnotable, claim that the many articles which were all about the woman were just passing mentions, daily newspapers with global, national and regional coverage are done away with as "local press" and there is some concentration on a document that was used to reference one of the facts and does not contribute to the general notability. Sure but then it wouldn't reduce the notability either. There were so of many of these that nominator has been restricted in submitting these "AfDs" (probably too much) but breaks with the community restrictions. In the other AfD a few days earlier, he just removed the entire article after it was found to be notable, then nominates it for deletion after being caught red handed. This entire series of AfDs needs some serious scrutiny.
gidonb (
talk) 15:41, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
- I'm willing to take over as nominator if necessary. Power~enwiki ( talk) 15:49, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
- The claim of Gidonb is false. The limit placed on me was 1 AfD created per every 24-hour period, not one per month. This procedural opposition has no grounding in fact, and ignored my arguments for why we should delete this article on an extremely localized figure. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 02:24, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
- Comment The reference in the lede to [1] is trivial, but founding an organization might be a claim of notability. I see no secondary coverage of "Break the Silence", and the only activity I can find on their website is that they sponsor an annual 5k run, which isn't sufficient. Power~enwiki ( talk) 15:49, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
- Comment There's a separate argument regarding Miss Canada. Winning Miss Canada doesn't guarantee that the winner is notable (the way that winning an Academy Award would), but is it (or should it be) a situation where winners who pursue a public profile are almost always notable?
Power~enwiki (
talk) 15:53, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
- The last one is actually a good point. I look at it, however, not from a pageant perspective because personally these shows (and tv in general) bore me to death. I look at the articles and their sourcing in their entirety and weigh if it is sufficient for notability. So the titles are out there now let's see if the person actually was covered. To your previous point, the coverage in "City approves trespass policy" is not trivial at all. It is an entire paragraph, plus the photo, plus its caption, plus the intro also draws our attention to the fact that Miles had spoken at the meeting. Thirdly, "Break the Silence" was an activity Miles undertook. If I understand correctly she had worked to fund it but was scammed out of some of the money and then had less budget=impact as it might have had. All that was covered in daily Canadian press which is pretty amazing. So this activity is not worthy of its very own article but definitely counting towards the general notability of Miss Miles. All her diverse human rights activities are. Now let's look at all 10 sources because without looking at the entiry we're going to make previous mistakes over and over again:
- Willick, Frances (August 9, 2010). "'A pageant with a cause'". Windsor Star. Retrieved June 15, 2013. Daily newspaper, Miles is the main subject of the article, counts towards notability
- Schmidt, Doug (May 27, 2013). "City approves trespass policy (With Video)". Windsor Star. Retrieved August 19, 2017. Daily newspaper, Miles is a subject in the article, counts towards notability
- Charron, Joel (February 28, 2012). "Miss Canada Jaclyn Miles speaks out". River Town Times. Retrieved June 15, 2013. Daily newspaper, Miles is the main subject in the article, counts towards notability
- "Jaclyn Miles – Miss Canada 2012". The Joy Smith Foundation. Retrieved June 15, 2013. Miles is the main subject in the article, does not count towards notability
- Belanger, Joe (April 21, 2013). ""If we valued life more than money maybe things would be different."". The London Free Press. Retrieved June 15, 2013. Daily press, Miles is the main subject in the article, counts towards notability
- Sims, Jane (June 7, 2013). "Tripped up in the tropics". The London Free Press. Retrieved June 15, 2013. Daily newspaper, Miles is a subject in the article, counts towards notability
- Sims, Jane (June 14, 2013). "Chris Bassoo says the government promised capital investment that never came for the Facebook tourism videos". The London Free Press. Retrieved August 19, 2017. Daily newspaper, Miles was a subject in the article, counts towards notability
- "Profile: Jaclyn Miles; Miss Canada – exhibiting strength and humility in abundance". Brescia University College. Retrieved August 19,2017. Miles the main subject in the article, does not count towards notability
- Carruthers, Dale (May 10, 2012). "Miss Canada speaks of abuse". The London Free Press. Retrieved August 18, 2017. Daily newspaper, Miles is the main subject in the article, counts towards notability
- Schmidt, Doug (December 13, 2012). "Miss Canada to lead Santa parade". Windsor Star. Retrieved August 19, 2017. Daily newspaper, Miles is the main subject in the article, counts towards notability
IN SUMMARY, out of 10:
- 8 are articles are in independent daily newspapers, 2 are on organizational websites
- In 7 articles she is the main topic, this include the 2 organizational articles, in 3 other she is a topic with significant coverage
So in summary we have 50% (!!!) main coverage in independent daily newspapers, 30% other significant coverage in the daily press, and 20% that is only used to verify fact in the article. gidonb ( talk) 16:32, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
- I don't believe notability works the way you think it works.
Power~enwiki (
talk) 16:34, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
-
Power~enwiki, actually this is exactly how it works. You look at the coverage that would count towards someone's notability, what is in it, what publications, did the journalists care to sign with their very own names (i.e. took pride in their work and the data in the article), was it one event, etc, and decide if it is sufficient. Analyze the strengths and weaknesses of the coverage. For example, the weakness that I see and mentioned in my opinion above is that the span of coverage is short. If one concentrates only on the articles that do not count towards notability, only tries to dismiss arguments of others, or claims that an article that has significant coverage does not have the same, one's opinion should get discounted. It is not late to take another look at the articles and subject, I understand also that the intro was "somewhat" misleading. We have dealt with that as a community.
gidonb (
talk) 17:05, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
- "Miss Canada to Lead Santa Parade" is not an article that adds towards the notability of someone, it is a warmed over press release. If everyone who was mentioned in the headline in their local paper as the person who was going to lead a parade was notable, then we would greatly increase the level of notability. Not one of the articles listed has a background that allows it to stand as a truly indeendent source. These are all local human interest stories, with the lone exception being the passing mention in an article on a protest that does not focus on her. Being briefly mentioned in an article on a protest is not enough to pass the general notability guidelines.
John Pack Lambert (
talk) 02:38, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
- No matter how silly your arguments get - you keep trying. That is special! This news item was carried by two national networks for very good reasons. It was a hot national Canadian news item: West Ontario celebrity trumped American celebrity. Also it is not nearly the only item that contributes to Miles' notability; there are tens of articles in regional daily newspapers in which she has significant coverage. I can't add all the sources. There are just too many!!! Anyone can check for themselves. gidonb ( talk) 01:45, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
- "Miss Canada to Lead Santa Parade" is not an article that adds towards the notability of someone, it is a warmed over press release. If everyone who was mentioned in the headline in their local paper as the person who was going to lead a parade was notable, then we would greatly increase the level of notability. Not one of the articles listed has a background that allows it to stand as a truly indeendent source. These are all local human interest stories, with the lone exception being the passing mention in an article on a protest that does not focus on her. Being briefly mentioned in an article on a protest is not enough to pass the general notability guidelines.
John Pack Lambert (
talk) 02:38, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
-
Power~enwiki, actually this is exactly how it works. You look at the coverage that would count towards someone's notability, what is in it, what publications, did the journalists care to sign with their very own names (i.e. took pride in their work and the data in the article), was it one event, etc, and decide if it is sufficient. Analyze the strengths and weaknesses of the coverage. For example, the weakness that I see and mentioned in my opinion above is that the span of coverage is short. If one concentrates only on the articles that do not count towards notability, only tries to dismiss arguments of others, or claims that an article that has significant coverage does not have the same, one's opinion should get discounted. It is not late to take another look at the articles and subject, I understand also that the intro was "somewhat" misleading. We have dealt with that as a community.
gidonb (
talk) 17:05, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 19:28, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 19:28, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
- Keep WP:IAR Canada is a nation of 35,000,000; and the article has multiple sources
, including some from England. Nomination does not appear to be aware of WP:BEFORE, WP:Deletion policy#CONTENT, WP:INSIGNIFICANCE, WP:ATD, and WP:IGNORINGATD, but the nominator should by now be well aware that if he believes that this topic is non-notable, deletion is not a policy-based option. So what does he believe? Why are we here? Unscintillating ( talk) 02:44, 24 August 2017 (UTC)- California has more people then Canada, yet we regularly delete articles on Miss California winners who do not meet our notability guidelines, so the opening is not really an argument. It also ignores the level of coverage of the contest itself. I was very aware of before, and performed a proper before search that showed no other significatn coverage. Having multiple sources alone does not make someone notable. Nor does extremely passing mention in the international press make someone notable. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 02:27, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
- Comment The above analysis of the sources is clearly flawed. That said, I am not sure that the claim by unscintillating that some sources from England is proved. What source exists that is from England? All the sources I see are local coverage from Canada. Not one constitutes substantial coverage in a reliable source that proves anyone cares about her outside the local area where she lives. College publications and local paper blurbs do not add towards notability. Put another way, if Miss Canada was truly something of note in Canada we would be seeing articles from across Canada about Miles. That is not what we see. All the listed articles are from publications in the western part of the Ontario peninsula. So unscintillating's claims about "sources from England" seem to be based on misunderstanding what London was referred to. Gibonb has made false claims about the limitations against my activity on Wikipedia, and has shown a clear lack of understanding of what does and does not add towards the general notability guidelines. We need something more than human insterest stories and press releases to demonstate notability. One more time, is Miss Canada was as notable a title as some claim, we would be able to find indepth articles on Miles when she won in major Canadian papers, in the same way the winner of Miss America gets covered is the press all over the US. This is not what we have here. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 02:34, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
- Your correct conclusion that I'd never heard of a town in Ontario of 400,000 people and their daily newspaper does not validate your straw men. Where was your WP:BEFORE D1 analysis that might have better prepared me? Why do you flee WP:IGNORINGATD like a vampire from a cross? It never adds up. Unscintillating ( talk) 15:39, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
- My wife has a special connection to London, Ontario so we had quickly driven in and out before en route to Toronto. In 2013 we finally spent a weekend there and I was even asked to give an impromptu presentation before a rather large audience. While the Thames of London, Ontario may be a bit of a disappointment after seeing the one in England, I have only pleasant memories from this city! gidonb ( talk) 02:54, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
- My analysis invalidates the ludicrous claims that there were sources from outside Canada. There is no obligation to give a full, item by item listing of every sub-standard source in an article in a deletion proposal. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 14:43, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
- I last edited this article on 2017-08-27T15:39:08, yet on 2 September here you are mocking a statement redacted long ago, as if this is important to you. You still have no argument for deletion, since WP:DEL7 does not exist in isolation of WP:ATD, and you are still WP:IGNORINGATD. Unscintillating ( talk) 23:32, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
- As stated at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2016 July 20, "Wikipedia deletion practice right back to Nupedia days has been based on the implicit assumption that 'if a significant number of people are likely to consider the topic important, it's generally important enough to warrant an article provided one can be written'...This [is] a straightforward statement of how Wikipedia functions". Unscintillating ( talk) 15:39, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
- Comment
CBC News and
CTV News are *not* news sources from Western Ontario but prime(time) nationwide Canadian news sources operating from
Toronto. I also stand behind every other statement made above. By structurally misleading the community JPL attempts and sometimes succeeds at removing articles.
gidonb (
talk) 19:17, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
- Passing mentions about who is leading a parade do not show that the person leading the parade is notable. Especially when they are last minute recruits to replace truly notable people. The CBC News and CTV News articles are about the parade, not Miles, and so add nothing to the notability of Miles.
John Pack Lambert (
talk) 14:46, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
- Your comments gets sillier every time! There is nothing passing about the articles referenced in the entry. For example, the national Canadian CTV Television Network article has 6 paragraphs on Jaclyn Miles, including a photo. This article is among the better referenced articles at Wikipedia and it would be a shame to throw such a well-referenced article away. Also there is nothing wrong with the people of Canada or of South Ontario. Happily married to a wife who is precisely from there, I should know! Ontario is home to 40% of the population of Canada so regional matters in Ontario are national matters (as we see in the national coverage of Miles), far more even then in California, the most populous state of the US that is home to just 12% of the Americans. Miles has been well covered and substantially covered in the national, regional and local Canadian press. There is much and much more but this should be enough referencing. It's already exceptional on a WP scale. gidonb ( talk) 20:45, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
- Passing mentions about who is leading a parade do not show that the person leading the parade is notable. Especially when they are last minute recruits to replace truly notable people. The CBC News and CTV News articles are about the parade, not Miles, and so add nothing to the notability of Miles.
John Pack Lambert (
talk) 14:46, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Second relist: Since this is a BLP
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Black Kite (talk) 18:33, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
Relisting comment: Second relist: Since this is a BLP
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Black Kite (talk) 18:33, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
- Comment not included yet in the article, but here is more significant coverage in one of Canada's main newspapers!!! (in addition to the the main television networks)
http://www.metronews.ca/news/2012/03/05/miss-canada-takes-on-domestic-abuse.html This is a major article entirely about Jaclyn Miles in the sixth most-read newspaper of Canada. This AfD is totally baseless and clueless, with an intro that disregards all our rules. It is a huge waste of time for the WP community. gidonb ( talk) 01:24, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
- Sorry I now see that it was carried by all the Metro editions (can be checked when comparing with the other item that was carried by the London edition), not just by the biggest one in Toronto. So the total readership is nearly twice that of the #1 newspaper in Canada. This piles up on and beyond the other distinguished newspapers and national television networks with significant coverage. gidonb ( talk) 02:00, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
- Delete The "significant article" reference provided by gidonb above fails
WP:BASIC as the vast majority of the article is a word-for-word interview with the subject and is a PRIMARY source. No indications of any substantive independent articles from secondary sources. Overall, topic fails criteria for notability.
-- HighKing
++ 16:44, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
- Actually the majority of this particular article is *not* an interview!
gidonb (
talk) 16:16, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
- Actually, it would be nice if you could follow the simple guidelines for formatting and indentation. And you are correct - not the majority but the *entire* article is *based* on an interview. The article uses a mix of direct quotes "in quotes", or statements directly attributed to Miles, or statements made to put the next "quote" in context but which were obviously part of the interview. The bottom line is my statement above is still correct. The references fails since it is not intellectually independent and a PRIMARY source, just like the other references. I believe you misunderstand the criteria for establishing notability if you believe that this source is good for that purpose. -- HighKing ++ 20:41, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
- Actually the majority of this particular article is *not* an interview!
gidonb (
talk) 16:16, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
- Comment John Pack Lambert claims without evidence that sources are not working as independent journalists. HighKing claims that the sources are not "intellectually independent" which simply means that the reporters are people living on the planet Earth with further connections to the topic.
Unscintillating (
talk) 23:32, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
- This is just a continuation of Unscintillating twisting what others say to advance his single minded attempts to preserve every article on a beauty queen ever. I never stated that the journalists were not indepdent, except for those publishing on college periodicals. What I did state was it was local coverage, or passing coverage, and thus not enough for notability. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 05:03, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
- Delete - Sources fail to meet the requirements for WP:INDEPTH; being Miss Canada also is not an instant claim to notability as John pointed out earlier. Perhaps I can be the first delete voter that isn't met with a big ol' mallet? TheGracefulSlick ( talk) 00:28, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
- Redirect to Miss Canada. I have no strong objection to keeping, but the case for notability is borderline. And {{ R to list entry}} is a valid alternative to deletion. NewYorkActuary ( talk) 12:25, 5 September 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.