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. There seems to be clear consensus that the notability guidelines for politicians are failed here. Also, it is evident that “significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject” within the meaning of the general notability guideline is not demonstrated here. Even those, who said the article should be kept, partly admit that there is a lack of such reliable sources. Hence, there is a consensus for deletion. — Aitias // discussion 13:47, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jane Scharf

[edit]

Delete - I do not believe Jane Scharf is notable enough to have a wikipedia page. Further, her own activity on the page makes me think some of it is a vanity piece. The article is unsourced and original research provided by Scharf herself brings its neutrality into question. TastyCakes (talk) 18:49, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – At this time. Was only able to find one 3rd party – creditable and verifiable source, as shown here [1]. Good luck with her cause. ShoesssS ^Talk 19:24, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I found the same source as Shoessss, and based on my interpretation of the general notability guidelines, one reliable source with significant coverage can be enough to establish notability, although multiple sources are generally preferred. "The number and nature of reliable sources needed varies depending on the depth of coverage and quality of the sources. Multiple sources are generally preferred." It is my opinion that the exclusive coverage of this single source is reliable enough to presume that she is notable. I would keep the article, but challenge and remove all unsourceable statements. LinguistAtLarge 22:03, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – Not criticizing here, but I believe you overlooked the last s in sources as in multiple publications and articles. But A for effort. A true inclusionist after my own heart :-). If she runs again for Mayor and wins, she is a definite shoo-in at that time. Take care. ShoesssS ^Talk 22:10, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Not insisting I'm right, and definitely open to discussion and correction, but this, from WP:BIO means to me that one source can be enough: "A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject. If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be needed to prove notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may not be sufficient to establish notability." Linguist<spanstyle="color:#999;">AtLarge 22:21, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – I hear what you are saying, and in fact the guidelines actually says, “What constitutes a "published work" is deliberately broad” so personal interpretation can be used. However, my gist is that when they say: “… Non-triviality is a measure of the depth of content of a published work, and how far removed that content is from a simple directory entry or a mention in passing that does not discuss the subject in detail. A credible 200-page independent biography of a person that covers that person's life in detail is non-trivial”. However, I believe a 1500-2000 word article by itself, as the only available source, is trivial. ShoesssS ^Talk 22:52, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Somehow this nomination seems to have links leading to two places. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jane_Scharf and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Talk:Jane Scharf LinguistAtLarge 22:32, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ya it was my first AFD and I screwed it up... Sorry about that TastyCakes (talk) 01:40, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- could do with another source, but clearly indicates notability beyond the one field. -- Jubelum (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 09:22, 18 December 2008 (UTC).[reply]

Comment - Are there other sources? TastyCakes (talk) 18:11, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. —Bearcat (talk) 07:04, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:POLITICIAN, candidates for election aren't presumed notable in the absence of reliable sources, and at present the only provided source is an activist group's press release on an e-mail listserv. That isn't really an indication of encyclopedic notability. Delete unless far more detailed and substantial sources can be provided. Bearcat (talk) 07:04, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mgm|^(talk) 05:47, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Unelected candidates aren't inherently notable, and she doesn't seem to have had significant coverage outside the one source. The way I interpret WP:POLITICIAN - and I might be wrong, so feel free to correct me - is that an unsuccessful candidate has to have coverage that shows notability beyond the fact that he or she simply ran for office. The source we have a) doesn't indicate this and b) doesn't quite meet my definition of "reliable." If we could find sources that show that her homelessness protest and/or mayoral campaign received non-trivial attention by news sources (rather than the press release currently cited), she might meet the notability criteria, but I'm having a hard time finding any mentions of her on the web that aren't just offhand mentions of the fact she ran for office or local editorials written by her. Graymornings_(talk) 07:00, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless reliable sources can be added. (And fast.) Deb (talk) 12:59, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a coatrack/vanity article for a minor candidate who ran for mayor of Ottawa. Simply running for mayor isn't notable, anyone can do that. Winning a large number of votes, however, is notable but she failed to do so. Tavix (talk) 17:07, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Move to user space, as long as creator promises to remove the article's photo. travb (talk) 20:39, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Remove the photo? What's the point? I don't know about you but deleting it from Wikipedia won't stop it haunting my dreams... TastyCakes (talk) 23:25, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Here's another, shorter but high quality source. ( The 1,500 - 2,000 word source pointed out by Shoessss, and Linguist is rather more substantial than what is usually considered trivial in my experience). There's this link at the top of the gnews results - titled "Jane Scharf réclame des bureaux de scrutin pour les sans-abri" - Une candidate à la mairie d'Ottawa veut forcer le bureau municipal des élections à installer des bureaux de scrutin dans les quatre plus importants refuges ... from cyberpresse.ca - Sep 6, 2006. The 404 message says it is temporarily unavailable due to changes in their archives, but should be back up in a month. (There are 3 other links from them with the same problem.) There's this 2003 story from the Centretown News [2]. Finally, These interviews by Denis Rancourt (recent AfD survivor) might qualify.John Z (talk) 06:15, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also, as the article states, she is mentioned frequently enough, sometimes in articles largely focused on her activities, in the Ottawa XPress , as 21 hits for her on their site indicate.John Z (talk) 09:42, 25 December 2008 (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.