Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Svetlana Sotiroff MacDonald

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. While I understand the comment around marking articles as references required, this cannot apply with a biography of a living person. Daniel (talk) 12:38, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Svetlana Sotiroff MacDonald

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

WP:BLP, relying entirely on primary sources without so much as a whit of reliable source coverage in sight, of a person whose most substantive claim of notability is as a local school board trustee. This is not a level of political office that gets a person over WP:NPOL, so her ability to qualify for a Wikipedia article rests entirely on being able to source her over WP:GNG — but given the primary sourcing, that hasn't been demonstrated here. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 18:53, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:24, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:24, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:24, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:24, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Actually, I'm not even sure that there are primary sources, since this article has no actual references. This is another case where I would like to mark it for needing references for a while and see what happens. The person may not be notable, but there are some interesting bits about French language education and same sex marriage that, if properly sourced, might be significant. If not, then deletion would make sense. LaMona (talk) 10:32, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the external links themselves are all webpages of organizations that happen to be mentioned in the text of the article, so that does count as primary sourcing. For the record, though, I don't put much stock in either French language education or same-sex marriage support as prima facie proof of her notability — her name garners zero hits even in ProQuest's Canadian Newsstand database and just 42 hits (most of which are just mirroring our article) on Google, so I'm not seeing any sourceable evidence that she had a substantive or widespread or meaningful impact on either of those issues. Bearcat (talk) 19:22, 29 January

Strong Delete - I did a search using two search engines, still couldn't find any news or published notable results. With the lack of references, shows non- notable.Chosenone Pie (talk) 04:52, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The article describes only local activism that seems unlikely to me to be notable. Regardless, it depends on the existence of reliable sources, which we don't have currently, so there is no actual evidence of notability. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:23, 1 February 2015 (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.