Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tanya Granic Allen

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
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 redirect to Progressive Conservative Party of Ontario leadership election, 2018. Spartaz Humbug! 08:05, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tanya Granic Allen


Tanya Granic Allen (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:NPOL - aspiring politician who has never held public office. Non-political achievements don't meet GNG. Should she win the PC leadership, or a seat, she'd qualify for an article - but just running for leadership (and her other work) doesn't pass the notability test. See WP:Articles for deletion/Rick Peterson (Canadian politician) for a similar situation. Madg2011 (talk) 19:16, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. MT TrainDiscuss 19:23, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. MT TrainDiscuss 19:23, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Based on the sheer number of news articles referenced on this individual's page, it seems to be clear that the newsworthiness and notability of this person is established beyond a reasonable doubt. Outback the koala (talk) 01:17, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
There are four articles referenced on the page. Two are WP:ROUTINE coverage of her leadership bid, and one is a lifestyle-section interview with her about her family (which has nothing to do with either her politics or activism). Only one of the four could maybe pass the bar as a useful reference. How is that a "sheer number [...] beyond a reasonable doubt"? Madg2011 (talk) 16:04, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I would have thought as a leading figure in Ontario as a pro-life organizer and educational reform activist she would had her own article before the leadership for leader of the official opposition. This I would think puts things over the top in my mind even further. Your point on sources on this page is well taken, I see only four at this time as some were removed; I will do some research and flesh out this article with more sourcing and sourced material, which shouldn't be hard for such a prominent figure in the current political landscape. Long story short, here's a person who meet eligibility via notability. Outback the koala (talk) 06:22, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Every organizer or activist for a political cause doesn't get an automatic notability freebie either. Outside of the leadership campaign itself, I find no evidence of any significant coverage about her that would have gotten her over WP:GNG for her activism — I get a few glancing namechecks of her existence in coverage of other things, but no sources that would have been enough to get her an article for being a pro-life organizer or education reform activist per se. Bearcat (talk) 18:28, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Becoming a prominent figure in Canadian politics, could end up as premier of Ontario. -- Evans1982 (talk) 05:37, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
As per WP:NPOL, and the discussion in the Peterson AfD, unelected politicians have to pass GNG to warrant their own articles. Granic Allen doesn't. Madg2011 (talk) 16:04, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Also, Wikipedia is not about what may happen... it is about what has happened. The mere fact that she could be the next premier (which requires her to win the leadership election and the general election) does not automatically make the leader of a small single-issue activist group notable. RA0808 talkcontribs 17:41, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If she does end up as leader of the party and/or Premier of Ontario — I strongly doubt that she'll achieve either of those things, but after Trump I've learned to never say never anymore — then she'll obviously get an article when that happens. But we don't keep an article just because of what might happen in the future, we keep or delete it based on what's already true as of today and then permit recreation in the future if and when things change. Bearcat (talk) 21:54, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. – Lionel(talk) 10:13, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Conservatism-related deletion discussions. – Lionel(talk) 10:13, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep If she fails in the leadership election, then I will say delete. But for now she is a noteworthy candidate. // sikander { talk } 11:24, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
We do not keep articles just because the subject might accomplish something in the future that they have not already accomplished as of today. If she wasn't already notable enough for a Wikipedia article for other reasons before becoming a candidate, then she does not become notable enough for an article unless and until she wins the leadership. Bearcat (talk) 23:41, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. RA0808 talkcontribs 18:24, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and redirect or draftify Once someone is notable they are notable forever; the keep arguments here imply a WP:TOOSOON SportingFlyer (talk) 18:51, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or redirect to Progressive Conservative Party of Ontario leadership election, 2018. The leadership election is notable, even if the candidates may not be. Also, see WP:CRYSTAL. --Enos733 (talk) 19:51, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Progressive Conservative Party of Ontario leadership election, 2018. People do not get Wikipedia articles just for being non-winning candidates in political party leadership races — if they didn't already qualify for a Wikipedia article for some other reason before being a leadership candidate, such as actually having held a notable political office already, then they have to win the leadership, not just run for it, to clear the notability bar. The coverage she's received in this context just makes her a WP:BLP1E, not a topic of sustained encyclopedic interest who would pass the ten-year test. If she wins the leadership, then she'll be notable enough for her own article — but merely being a candidate in the leadership race is not in and of itself enough to earn her anything more than having her name present in the article on the race itself. Bearcat (talk) 21:54, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect Agree with above points. No notability established. Alaney2k (talk) 23:07, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Progressive Conservative Party of Ontario leadership election, 2018- Fails WP:POLITICIAN. The coverage of her campaign is rather routine. Also, there is a huge difference between notable now and may become notable. We are only concerned with current notability. If and when she becomes premier of Ontario (I'm not that familiar with Canadian government, is that like a governor or something?) then she may qualify for an article, but certainly not now.--Rusf10 (talk) 00:42, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect for now. WP:Too soon applies here. VivaSlava (talk) 01:01, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Lots of arguments against are based on her political career. Given the significant coverage (many articles) in mainstream newspapers like the Toronto Star, Globe and Mail, etc., I should think GNG is obvious. Agricola44 (talk) 03:19, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • What significant coverage, though? Aside from the routine coverage of her running for the PC leadership the only other source that is more than a passing mention of her as a spokesperson was the NatPo article that interviewed her about having children in her 20s instead of waiting. RA0808 talkcontribs 18:28, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • Are there many articles about her in publications? Yes. Are these publications mainstream? Yes. Is that enough for GNG? Yes. I don't think it's up to you to demean the case with judgments like "routine coverage". She has been noted. A lot. That makes her notable. Not much more to discuss. Agricola44 (talk) 17:39, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        • We don't accept candidates for political office as notable for the fact of being candidates per se. Unless and until she wins the leadership, she has to be shown as having already been notable enough for a Wikipedia article for some other reason outside of the leadership campaign itself — until that can be shown, the campaign coverage itself just makes her a WP:BLP1E. Bearcat (talk) 18:32, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Progressive Conservative Party of Ontario leadership election, 2018 - does not meet WP:POLITICIAN - She is an activist who has never held public office. If she wins the leadership or a seat in the 2018 election, then she can qualify for a page. Until then, she should not have one. RoyalObserver (talk) 17:44, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. She's not notable... yet. She's just a candidate and may not become notable. Getting mentioned in news articles for being a candidate does not confer notability. If she wins, or otherwise becomes notable, the article can be added later. Ira Leviton (talk) 22:23, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Not notable and not the leader. If she becomes the leader and/or an MPP, then she may be notable. Me-123567-Me (talk) 05:07, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • KeepUntil March 8th then decide. She is running for an important political position in a heated race, if she doesn't make the cut at the conclusion of voting on that date then decide. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2607:FEA8:7D20:303:D88D:5515:2002:AC59 (talk) 05:11, 25 February 2018 (UTC) — 2607:FEA8:7D20:303:D88D:5515:2002:AC59 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
That's not the way it works. We're deciding on notability now, we're not waiting until future notability can be determined.--Rusf10 (talk) 05:39, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
As already noted several times above, that's not how it works. We do not keep Wikipedia articles pending the possible future achievement of something that would pass a notability criterion — we keep or delete based on what's already true today, and then permit recreation in the future if things change. If she wins the leadership, then she'll qualify to have an article once that happens — but she doesn't get to already have one today just for being a candidate who might win the leadership in the future. Bearcat (talk) 18:21, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (changed to Merge) There are plenty of reliable secondary sources referencing her. Quick google search returns 15,600 items ranging from CBC, CTV, Global, Star and such -Truther2012 (talk) 21:04, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You can google my name and see news articles highlighting activist/advocacy. It doesn't make me significant enough for a wikipedia page. The fact is, she's an activist who protests/advocates on one issue. Never held significant office, nor really done anything significant until now. RoyalObserver (talk) 22:55, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
We do not keep an article about every single person who can say that some media coverage of them exists — if that were enough in and of itself, we would have to keep an article about every fire and police chief in existence, every smalltown municipal councillor and school board trustee in existence, every high school athlete in existence, every radio personality in existence, my mother's neighbour who got into the papers for finding a pig in her front yard a few years ago, and on and so forth. Coverage has to do more than just reference her — it has to be about her accomplishing something that passes a Wikipedia inclusion standard, and makes her more than just a WP:BLP1E. Bearcat (talk) 23:37, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This is the most nonsensical argument I have ever read on Wikipedia to date! If I found a pig in my yard, you know the first thing I would do, and you know I would, is rush to make myself a Wikipedia page. And the pig incident would make up the bulk(at least three paragraphs). It's basic logic! I would very much consider that a notable and newsworthy event in my life, including a picture in the Christmas cards. Maybe I'd name him Reg, in honour of the Star Trek character. Outback the koala (talk) 03:41, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
But seriously this is not a fair comparison, she is vying for leader of the official opposition of Canada's largest province, not a high school athlete. Outback the koala (talk) 03:44, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia's inclusion standard for politicians is holding office, not running for it. We don't exempt an aspiring candidate from that standard just because "media coverage exists", because media coverage always exists for all candidates in all political races. But unless they either (a) win, or (b) were already notable enough for an article for other reasons anyway, that coverage just makes them a WP:BLP1E. Which is why the pig lady is not an unfair comparison: the basis for Wikipedia having an article about her would be "but media coverage of her exists", and the reasoning being used to argue that Granic should be exempted from having to pass NPOL by winning the leadership first is "but media coverage of her exists". There are lots of people for whom some kind of media coverage does exist, but a reason why they would qualify to keep an encyclopedia article on the basis of that coverage does not — and being an as yet non-winning candidate for political office, who has no preexisting notability for any other reason, is one of those cases. Bearcat (talk) 14:59, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Kevin O'Leary ran one time for leadership of the federal Conservative party and like this woman had preexisting notability from before the race. I fail to see the distinction your making because media does not extensively cover a subject that is not notable, at least not normally since they are businesses looking to make money. BPL1E really does not apply to this situation because of preexisting notability; I believe the fact that this woman meets Two guidelines for inclusion, not just one, should be taken into consideration in combination, otherwise we are taking a very flat view of articles throughout the project. Many blp pages are dynamic, as are people irl, we see this often on minor actors and actresses pages during deletion discussions, where a verity of factors come into play, and rightly so in my opinion. There is so much content, it's too much to get through, but what is like to see is more effort to help improve this page, rather than knee jerk reaction to deleting a notable page. It does NOT in any way improve the encyclopedia to delete notable content that simply needs a little more work. It's better to build than destroy. Outback the koala (talk) 17:36, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Kevin O'Leary was already the subject of substantive and ongoing coverage in his TV career prior to running for the leadership — he does not have an article because he ran for Conservative leader and lost, but rather he already had an article for his TV career before he ever ran for leader of anything. It's not even a question of having to retroactively evaluate whether O'Leary would have qualified for an article before the leadership campaign or not — the article already existed ten years before he ever ran for the leadership of any political party at all. Nobody has been able to show any evidence that this woman was already receiving any substantive coverage for her activism work prior to running for the leadership, however. That's the difference: O'Leary already had preexisting notability for other things before running for the leadership, while Granic Allen has not been properly sourced as being able to claim the same. Bearcat (talk) 17:41, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Me-123567-Me (talk) 17:16, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree with counter arguments presented above. However, after more research I came across WP:POLOUTCOMES, which is fully applicable in this case. I would consider Merge to PC Leadership page to be a more appropriate solution - Truther2012 (talk) 19:14, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep until end of race, and at the least, *redirect to candidate page, somewhat because of WP:POTENTIAL, but also because during the race, all of Ontario and probably thousands of other Canadians and Americans are looking to learn about who is at minimum, 25% likely to be Ontario's (yes, Canada's busiest province) next Premier. Granic Allen meets WP:POLITICIAN requirement number 2 - "Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage." I'd say she's received significant coverage in only 2 or 3 weeks that she's been running. Ultimately, if her article is going to paint an incorrect picture of who she is, emitting various affiliations and works, such as her work at the UN which is presently unmentioned: *delete; however, if google search stats could talk right now for Ontario politics, Granic Allen needs a page at least until March 10. 4truth4 (talk) 22:59, 28 February 2018 (UTC)— 4truth4 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
My responses:
  • If people want to learn about her, they can Google her or look on other sites. Public interest can be part of a Keep argument, but it doesn't overrule policy.
  • The WP:POLITICIAN clause that you cite requires the subject to be "written about, in depth, independently in multiple news feature articles, by journalists." Not the case for Granic Allen.
  • Factual inaccuracy is a reason to improve an article, not to delete it. The discussion here is asking whether she, as a person, passes WP notability standards, not how good the article is.
  • Notability is permanent. "She is notable until March 10" isn't a good argument.
Madg2011 (talk) 23:06, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
4truth4: yet again, "keep for the duration of the race and then delete if she loses" is not a thing Wikipedia does. If a person was not already notable enough for a Wikipedia article before she became a candidate, then she has to win the race, not just run in it, to get an article for being in the race. Wikipedia is WP:NOTNEWS — our role is to keep articles about topics that people will still be looking for ten years from now, not to keep an article about every single person who happens to show up in the current news cycle for a single event, so a person who wasn't already notable enough for an article for some other reason before the leadership race does not become notable enough for an article unless and until she wins it. Bearcat (talk) 00:54, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep They say that a week is a long time in politics. Running for the PC leadership has propelled her into the news and there are sufficient sources for an article. Also, she had lots of news coverage before as spokesperson for Parents As First Educators.[1] Even if she fades back to relative obscurity, people interested in the history of the party will want to know who she was. While I agree that being a candidate is not a guarantee of notability, this contest requires a $100,000 entry fee, which limits the number of entries, and she is participating in the debates and receiving on-going news coverage, unlike for example the 60 minor candidates who ran for mayor of Toronto. TFD (talk) 02:42, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Current newsiness is not grounds for a Wikipedia article. If a person was not already notable enough for a Wikipedia article for some other reason before becoming a candidate, then she has to win the race, not just be a candidate in it, to become notable enough. Every candidate in any election could always claim to have received enough coverage to get into Wikipedia because of the candidacy itself, because every candidate always gets at least as much as has been shown here, but if we accepted every candidate as notable just because of the campaign coverage itself, then we're no longer an encyclopedia but a worthless directory of non-neutral campaign brochures. The coverage that a candidate receives for being a candidate itself just makes her a WP:BLP1E, not a person who has permanently passed a Wikipedia notability standard on that basis, and the size of the entry fee that a person paid to enter the race is not a notability criterion either. If she wins the leadership, she'll get an article, but just being a candidate for the leadership does not qualify her for an article in and of itself — if she wouldn't have already qualified for one before she was a candidate, then she has to win the race to become eligible for an article. Bearcat (talk) 02:45, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
As I pointed out there is a difference between being registered as a candidate and achieving recognition as a candidate. She is involved in the televised debates as one of only four candidates. I take your point that it is her campaign that is notable, not Allen herself, in which case we could rename the article "PC Leadership campaign of Tanya Granic Allen," and then move it back in two weeks when she becomes a candidate for nomination as MPP. The reason for BLP notablity guidelines is that we should not have articles about people for whom insufficient sources are available to write a fair article. That's not the case here. Incidentally, the Sarah Thomson article began the same way.[2] She was a non-notable person who became notable because the media decided to raise her profile. I don't know why they did that, but it is secondary sources that determine notability, not Wikipedia editors.
See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sarah Thomson (politician). Same arguments and ended with no consensus. Maybe she's just famous for being famous. Think we should try another AfD?
TFD (talk) 03:21, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Every candidate in a race that has debates at all will, by definition, be included in those debates. It's not proof that she's recognized as "special" — it's automatically part and parcel of being a candidate at all. And no, the candidates don't get "leadership campaign of [Candidate]" articles as spinoffs from the overall article about the leadership race in general, either — and if she doesn't win the leadership, she also doesn't get an article for being a candidate for nomination as an MPP either. If she doesn't win the leadership race, then she goes right back to having to win election as an MPP, not just being a candidate in the provincial election, to clear the inclusion bar.
And no, the reason Sarah Thomson got to keep an article wasn't "campaign coverage" — the argument was that the preexisting coverage of her in the context of being a magazine publisher was enough to deem her notable for that, not that any part of the campaign coverage made her notable because candidate per se. I still didn't agree that there was enough preexisting coverage of her in the Women's Post context, but it was Women's Post that carried the day in her notability debate, not "candidate for mayor". Bearcat (talk) 03:40, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest this discussion be relisted to allow more engagement from editors not directly related to the subject. Outback the koala (talk) 03:10, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No, not all candidates are invited to debates, only notable candidates are. During the Toronto mayoral election, there are routinely dozens of candidates who are never invited. You are perhaps confusing this with non-televised all candidates debates for city councillors.
I'm not confusing anything with anything. In a party leadership race, all of the candidates are invited to participate in the debates. Bearcat (talk) 04:15, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thomson's notability as an editor was on a par with Granic Allen's notability as president of Parents As First Educators. Incidentally, are you saying that Sarah Thomson is more notable as a publisher than as a former candidate for mayor? And if Allen isn't notable, why are the media covering her? TFD (talk) 04:09, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thomson had media coverage in her role with the Women's Post. Granic did not have media coverage in any noteworthy context outside of the leadership race itself, or at least none has been shown and I can't find any either. No notability claim that any person can make ever confers an automatic "notable just because she did that" freebie that exempts her from having to show that she was getting enough media coverage to pass GNG for that thing. No evidence has been shown here that her PAFE work would have gotten her an article prior to somebody erroneously thinking that candidates get articles just for being candidates. Bearcat (talk) 04:17, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
A Google News search up to the date the Thomson article was created shows that she had no coverage for her role as editor, only for being a candidate.[3] Which probably explains why there was no article about her before. Notability is not about what we consider to be important, but what reliable sources decide to pay attention to. The existence of this article does not unduly elevate Granic Allen's profile or invade her privacy. TFD (talk) 11:59, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Google News is not a reliable gauge of how much coverage a person was or wasn't getting eight to ten years ago — it's only solid for locating current coverage, not decade-old coverage. It will still find some decade-old coverage, but it misses a lot more of that than it catches. To definitively determine whether a person was getting enough coverage a decade ago to qualify for an article or not, you need to search archival databases of news coverage, not Google. And at any rate, you can't just keep scouring Wikipedia looking for evidence that WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS — first it was Kevin O'Leary, then as soon as I clarified why that comparison doesn't wash it was suddenly Sarah Thomson instead — but the existence of any other article, regardless of how similar it may seem on the surface, does not create exemptions from Wikipedia's inclusion standards for anybody else. If you really think Thomson's not notable for anything but running for mayor and losing, then you're welcome to try nominating her for deletion again on the grounds that the first discussion evaluated her notability incorrectly — but the existence of that article is irrelevant to whether this one can exist or not, because they're not equivalent situations. Bearcat (talk) 15:08, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Minor figure but meets notability requirements. Nixon Now (talk) 13:22, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No, she does not. A candidate for office who was not already notable enough for an article before becoming a candidate does not clear notability standards on the candidacy coverage itself, because the campaign coverage itself just makes her a wP:BLP1E. Such a candidate has to win the job she's campaigning for before she "meets notability requirements". Bearcat (talk) 15:08, 1 March 2018 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Tanya_Granic_Allen&oldid=1068838736"