Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kelly Meighen

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. The "delete" arguments are stronger. Nobody has really argued that there are the kind of in-depth reliable sources, as opposed to passing mentions, that are a requirement for the inclusion of a biography. Sandstein 17:12, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kelly Meighen

Kelly Meighen (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)

Semi-advertorialized résumé of a philanthropist, not reliably sourced as meeting our notability standards. This is referenced 8/10 to primary sources that do not constitute support for notability at all, and 2/10 to glancing namechecks of her existence in coverage of other things or people -- which means it's referenced exactly 0/10 to reliable source coverage that's substantively about her. As usual, Wikipedia is WP:NOTLINKEDIN; we are not a place where people are automatically entitled to have articles that read like résumés, and talk about how "avid and highly accomplished" they are, just because they exist. Bearcat (talk) 05:15, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:47, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:47, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:47, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• this one appears to just need sourcing, much of the page is now PRIMARY sourced. Some of her positions on boards of charities can be confirmed by news sources [1]. More to the point, there is this Globe and Mail story: CAMH Centre for Addiction and Mental Health: Kelly Meighen The Globe and Mail; Toronto, Ont. [Toronto, Ont]29 Nov 2014: B.2. from which a bio can be sourced. And this: Stratford Festival Receives $5-Million Donation from Couple Canada AM - CTV Television; Toronto : n/a. Toronto: CTV Television, Inc. (Sep 27, 2000) ...to Stratford Festival; hitKelly hitMeighen, Donator to Stratford Festival; Antoni... ... hitKELLY hitMEIGHEN: We have a passion for Stratford. We love the theatre....... CIMOLINO: Thank you. hitKELLY hitMEIGHEN: Thank you... E.M.Gregory (talk) 01:13, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. This is an obvious PR piece. "Highly accomplished" in the lead? I can't find any secondary sources indicating notability. Most passing mentions are in association with her politician husband. Fails WP:GNG. Skirts⁸⁹ 11:15, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete UNAMBIGUOUS advertising from even the very first sentence. Trillfendi (talk) 15:20, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep article needs to be reworked to remove promotion, however WP:NOTCLEANUP WP:ATD WP:NOTPAPER subject passes WP:ANYBIO The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor, or has been nominated for such an award several times.

1. The Philanthropist of the Year Award from the Association of Fundraising Professionals in 2008.
2. The Dr. Ivan Smith Award.[8] Along with her husband, she was a recipient of the Yorktown Family Services Humanitarian Award for community service in 2013
3. The Queen's Golden Jubilee Medal.

I also removed some promotional language as cleanup and then arranged the research Lubbad85 (☎) 19:59, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ANYBIO is not automatically passed by just every award that exists on earth — it is passed only by notable awards that generate news coverage about the granting of the award, and not by non-notable awards that can be referenced only to their own self-published web presence. Zero of those awards pass the necessary conditions. Bearcat (talk) 19:02, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Lubbad85 (☎) 20:09, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Passes WP:ANYBIO due The Philanthropist of the Year Award and the Queen's Jubilee Medal. Article can use work with sources (without a 'blow it up and start over' approach. THEFlint Shrubwood (talk) 00:17, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Queen's Jubilee Medal is not an ANYBIO-passing award — it was presented to 46 thousand people in 2002, to honour any random act of community service that motivated any random person to nominate any other random person, so it is not a magic notability-maker in and of itself. And receiving an organization's own internal proprietary award for its own members, such as the Association of Fundraising Professionals' own "Philanthropist of the Year Award", is not a notability clincher either. For the purposes of whether an award gets its recipients over ANYBIO or not, we care only about awards that generate journalism that covers the granting of that award as news, and not about any award that can be referenced only to the award's own self-published website about itself because news coverage about it is nonexistent. Bearcat (talk) 19:00, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bearcat The Queen's Jubilee Medal is noteworthy enough that is has a Wikipedia article. In addition the subject has received RS coverage. I think the article has been improved since the afd. WP:ANYBIO covers this: "The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor". It is a significant honor. Lubbad85 (☎) 20:06, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The existence of a Wikipedia article about the award is not the test for whether an award is notable enough to make its winners notable for winning it; for one thing, its article is based entirely on primary sources, with not even one single solitary piece of real media coverage shown at all. The ability to source her reception of the award to a news story about her reception of the award is the test. Again, the medal was presented to forty six thousand people in a single year just in Canada alone, and another four hundred thousand people in the UK — so if she clears ANYBIO because of the Queen's Jubilee Medal itself, then so does every last one of those other 445,999 people. But they don't, and given the number of people we're talking about they can't, all clear ANYBIO on that basis alone, if they can't be properly sourced as having established notability for any other reason. Bearcat (talk) 20:11, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

We would have to rewrite the GNG criteria to include all of the hurdles that you are putting in front of the subject. As it is ...the award is well known and significant - I am unconcerned that 46k people received the award, nothing in the criteria speaks to numbers...again you would need to rewrite the criteria if you think too many people get the award for it to be "significant" and "well known". I am not concerned with other recipients who are not part of the afd, bbut this subject has many other GNG qualities besides the significant and well known award. In addition WP:NOTPAPER and no reason to WP:RUSHDELETE. cheers Lubbad85 (☎) 20:20, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

We wouldn't have to rewrite a damn thing. GNG is the hurdle I'm putting in front of the subject — GNG is a measure of the quality of the sources, not a measure of what the article does or doesn't say — and the award is not "well-known and significant" enough to exempt her from having to pass GNG on the sourcing. As a Canadian, I'm also a much more reliable judge of whether a Canadian award is "well-known and significant" or not than a non-Canadian is. And I also don't give a flying fig what you're "unconcerned" about: if the award constitutes an ANYBIO pass in and of itself, just because it can technically be referenced to the award's own self-published website about itself in the absence of any media coverage about it, then 446,000 Canadian and British people just got instant inclusion freebies that exempt them from actually having to pass GNG on real sources. Bearcat (talk) 20:30, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry that you are getting angry with me. I am actively researching the subject. You should take it as a win that your afd has caused others to improve the article. By the way...I just added another award she received On Thursday Janury 31st, 2019. Lubbad85 (☎) 20:37, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yet another non-notable award sourceable only to the awarding organization's own self-published content about itself, with no evidence of reliable source journalism reporting the award's presentation as a news story, still doesn't change anything. As I correctly said earlier, ANYBIO is not just automatically passed by just any award that exists — it is passed only by awards that media outlets care enough about to assign journalists to write news stories about, and not by any award that does not. Bearcat (talk) 20:41, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

We do not share the same opinion, but I am actively improving the article and that is because of the Afd. I will discontinue this debate with you since it is taking time from the active research. Ferreting out sources is often difficult for those who did great things pre-internet, however I have no such awards as this person - and they are significant and well known. It seems this person is a great credit to humanity and a great Canadian, the sources and research clearly show that. I will continue to seek sources that show GNG. Have a great day. Lubbad85 (☎) 20:50, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - meets WP:NBIO - the Meighen Family Foundation and The Meighen Centre are significant and notable achievements - Epinoia (talk) 02:05, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The extent to which those are "notable achievements" is strictly coterminous with the extent to which they generate journalism in reliable sources. There is nothing that any person can ever claim that constitutes an automatic inclusion freebie just because they exist: the inclusion test hinges on the extent to which media did or did not report on those things as news, not on simply being able to offer primary source verification that the person exists. Bearcat (talk) 15:20, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep What she has created and awards she has won seems to make her notable enough for a Wikipedia article. Someone dedicating their life to helping others might not get as much coverage in the media as some random model or entertainer, but there are other ways to determine their notability. Dream Focus 04:12, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep per SIGCOV. E.M.Gregory (talk) 02:08, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I believe this article has been relisted in violation of wikipedia policies and guidelines for closure of afd. We have WP:CONSENSUS. Editors disagree with the relisting assertion that the awards are not relevant and with the nominator's assertions. Also ignored are editor arguments about this person's philanthropic WP:GNG. (also posted on relister's talk page) Lubbad85 (☎) 21:53, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete – Online searching is turning up passing mentions, or quotes in stories focused on something else (usually focused on the recipient of their gift). Nothing that would be significant enough to meet WP:BASIC. The best I can find is this article, which is more about the organizations than the person, and this book, which does not appear to be a reliable source because Dog Ear Publishing is a vanity press (so I think using it would be an SPSBLP violation). I don't see WP:ANYBIO as being met, either. The Queen Elizabeth II Golden Jubilee Medal is given out to 46,000 people; by definition that's not an award that confers notability, as it's given out to too many people. The Philanthropist of the Year Award is, well, given by the Association of Fundraising Professionals Greater Toronto Chapter (i.e., the people who solicit charitable donations [2]). So that would be an award given by people who ask for money to people who give money...in Toronto, where the Meighens are based. Hmm. Definitely not independent or conferring notability. The "prestigious" (our article says) Humanitarian Award for Community Service was given by Yorktown Family Services in 2013. I guessed: if I look at their annual reports, will I find that the Meighens became donors in, say, 2012 or 2013? Yup. Here are the annual reports if you want to look. They show up in 2011–2012 as individual donors, the foundation donates in 2012–2013, and the Meighens get the award as mentioned in the 2013–2014 annual report. What a surprise. Look, she and her husband Michael Meighen sound like great people and great philanthropists, and the organizations and causes they support also sound worthy. At some point, she, or the foundation, may receive enough significant coverage to meet WP:BIO, but I don't see evidence of it today. I do think that she and the work she does might be included in the articles about the organizations she is involved with, such as Stratford Festival and Centre for Addiction and Mental Health. But after researching, I have to !vote delete here, at least until they donate to the WMF (just kidding). Leviv ich 23:01, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per SIGCOV. Meets WP:GNG. Several substantial awards, philanthropic activity, etc. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 16:58, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  What are the WP:THREE that meet GNG? Leviv ich 17:30, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  There are already 19 sources in this article. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 18:27, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  You said "Keep per SIGCOV". Which of the 19 would you say are SIGCOV, i.e., significant coverage in an independent, reliable source? Leviv ich 20:49, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There is a synergy and consistent theme here. The whole is more than the sum of the individual pieces. WP:Not paper. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 22:02, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That’s not how the GNG or SIGCOV works. We don’t have a “X minor mentions equal one significant source” rule. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 19:25, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You are entitled to your opinion. I have min. We will have to agree to disagree. Cheers. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 13:26, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete—since there are plainly erroneous interpretations of policy and guideline above, registering my opinion. As Levivich amply demonstrates above, the awards are basically peacock philanthropist titles that don't demonstrate real notability beyond spreading money around. To go through the sources presented in this version:
  • 1,2,3: Stray mention in Montreal Gazette, does not establish notability (not significant part of the article nor subject.) 2 and 3 are Geneological sites and an obituary not about the subject.
  • 4,5: Non-independent source that is used for a degree citation, and an honorary degree in a year given to multiple other people including her husband.
  • 6,7,8: Non-independent sources.
  • 9: Quoted in one line about a totally separate subject. Doesn't demonstrate notability.
  • 10: Actually a source from an independent reliable source about the Meighens ' charitable gift. It doesn't really spend much time on Ms. Meighen (she's barely quoted.)
  • 11: Non-independent source.
  • 12–19: The aforementioned awards that are anything but prestigious or unique enough to meet WP:ANYBIO.

The sum total of this is far short of a number of significant mentions in reliable sources. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 18:10, 14 May 2019 (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.