Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michèle Audette

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Beatley (talk | contribs) at 18:03, 3 May 2017. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Michèle Audette

Michèle Audette (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:BLP of an activist and unsuccessful political candidate, which isn't making or properly sourcing a genuinely strong claim of notability. There are claims here ("She was president of the Quebec Native Women (FAQ), then Canada's Aboriginal Women (NWAC).") that could get her an article if that was where the WP:WEIGHT of substance and sourcing were actually being placed, but this, as written, is fundamentally a campaign brochure about a political candidate, which just glancingly résumés her prior career background by listing jobs she happened to hold but failing to delve into any substance about anything she did in those jobs -- there's actually more substance here about her mother's activism than there is about hers, and the strongest GNG-worthy source in the entire article is just being used to support the name of her husband rather than any content that would actually be relevant to determining whether she passed a notability standard or not. Basically, this is a nuke and pave situation -- even if she can be shown as having sufficient notability as an activist, this article as written and sourced is not what it takes to get her there. Bearcat (talk) 01:48, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 07:24, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 07:24, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 07:24, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Clearly notable. Before nominating the article, sources should have been searched for and added to the article. 84.73.134.206 (talk) 18:51, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Quebec-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:45, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]