Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tracey Johnston-Aldworth

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. (WP:NPASR). (Non-administrator closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:34, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Tracey Johnston-Aldworth

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article about screen and textile printer, who professes to be a entrepreneur, but fails WP:BIO. No notability whatsoever. scope_creep talk 20:00, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:19, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:19, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:19, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep.The article is about a person who is notable for her environmental stewardship and recognition thereof by the Region of Waterloo consistently over the years. It meets all general notability and is not listed in any of the categories listed in the deletion claim. Article Creator. DivaWord (talk) 12:59, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable Canadian businesswoman and environmental spokesperson with multiple in-depth independent reliable sources such as this one and being on the cover and featured in this business magazine, plus numerous awards for environmental action such as special recognition from the government of Ontario. That said, the previous article was too long, with undue emphasis on spurious details, but the article has been shortened.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 01:57, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Hi Tomwsulcer and DivaWord. The article at [[1]] is a blog and is not under editorial control, so facts have not been checked, so not notable. The Print Queen page at Waterloo Chronicle doesn't have a reporter attribution, which means it's an advertising skit. It reads like a skit. The http://www.exchangemagazine.com magazine is a business advertising magazine to advertize the business. I've used the exact same methodology for my own business in the past. She is not notable.

Disagree, she is notable, and the sources are all reliable. The Grand River Conservation Authority has a wiki-article, has been around for 75 years with a large staff and its magazine publishes various writers and has an editor named Liz Leedham (see bottom of page); it is accountable to various publics as well as the government of Ontario; it is an acceptable source. The the Waterloo Chronicle article was most likely written by a staff writer or reporter; many newspapers do not give bylines (eg The Economist) it is a reliable source, and there is no requirement in Wikipedia that such articles must have bylines. Graphic Exchange Magazine is a prominent Canadian publication geared to graphic arts and related businesses, at one point having a print circulation of 18,000, now it appears in an online format; I see no indication why writer Jon Rohr would make anything up, or reprint a PR or advertising piece, or masquerade an advertisement as a magazine article, because his magazine is accountable to paid online subscribers who want good information not PR fluff. Rohr felt Tracey Johnston-Aldworth was notable enough to put her face on his magazine's cover and write an in-depth independent nontrivial article about her. These are acceptable sources.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 22:45, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:50, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:06, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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.