Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Connie Fournier

:{{la|Connie Fournier}} – (View AfDView log{{int:dot-separator}} [https://tools.wmflabs.org/jackbot/snottywong/cgi-bin/votecounter.cgi?page=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Connie_Fournier Stats])

:({{Find sources AFD|Connie Fournier}})

Non-notable. Article is a content fork of Free Dominion. Other than that she is the author of a self-published book which has not been reviewed by any reliable sources. Selwyn Floyd (talk) 13:40, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

::How is this deletion discussion not a multiple-forum abuse? There is an extensive unresolved merge discussion for this article: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Free_Dominion#Connie_Fournier_article_merge HERE]. The latter discussion also addresses independent notability of the BLP article. Denis.g.rancourt (talk) 16:32, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 13:57, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 13:57, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

• The problem here is that the sourcing is not adequate to meet WP:GNG as the topic of a standalone article in her own right separately from the website's article. Of the eleven sources here, one is a primary source supporting a distinction that doesn't constitute notability at all: the Queen Elizabeth II Diamond Jubilee Medal was presented to over 70,000 other Canadians besides her, on an "if anybody at all nominated you then you were guaranteed to get one" basis, so it cannot confer an automatic presumption of notability on every one of those people in and of itself. Then she was the author of three of them, which means those sources can't support notability. Another one is the text of a legal decision, which is a primary source that cannot support notability. Another two just namecheck her existence while not being about her in any substantive and non-trivial way, so yet again they cannot aid notability. And of the four remaining sources which are substantively about her in the manner necessary to count as supporting notability, all of them are covering her specifically in the context of the website. None of this suggests the need for a BLP of Fournier as an individual alongside a separate article about her website — it suggests adding content about Fournier to the website's article. Redirect to Free Dominion. Bearcat (talk) 23:46, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

• Maybe we are not reading the same sources? I see reliable independent sources about Fournier's contributions in matters distinct from Free Dominion: (1) on-going battle against Bill C-51, (2) opposition to Prime Minister Harper during a federal election using her book and despite being a known Conservative activist, and (3) successful campaign against the hate-speech provisions of the federal human rights code. In addition, she was the main self-represented defendant in major lawsuits tied to Free Dominion. The article's category is "Canadian activist" and few if any in this category have won three awards given for activism, including a national medal and a provincial civil liberties association award. I wonder if [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_%28people%29 the WP notability test] is not being taken too far here, especially in light of:

:(A) the [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#Proposed_deletion_of_biographies_of_living_people WP policy for proposed deletion of biographies of living people]: "All BLPs created after March 18, 2010 must have at least one source that supports at least one statement made about the person in the article, or it may be proposed for deletion. The tag may not be removed until a reliable source is provided, and if none is forthcoming, the article may be deleted after seven days. This does not affect other deletion processes mentioned in BLP policy and elsewhere."

:(B) The WP practice for the "Canadian activist" category has not been to negate BLP pages in such cases as this one. In fact, as I examine the articles in the "Canadian activist" category, I find that approximately 30-50% of the articles are much less supported by sources and outward signs of notability than the Fournier article. For example: Mark Freiman, Sylvain Abitbol, Herbert Brownstein, Hershell Ezrin, Moshe Ronen, and many many others.

:Keep Denis.g.rancourt (talk) 14:17, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

::The Queen Elizabeth II Diamond Jubilee Medal is not an award that can make every recipient notable enough for an encyclopedia article just for receiving it — as noted, it was presented to 71,000 Canadians nationwide, and was essentially presented to every single person who was nominated for it for any reason whatsoever by any nominator whatsoever. So it doesn't aid notability at all, because it doesn't inherently constitute a noteworthy distinction.

::And as already noted in the talk page discussion, you're personally involved in the organization and administration of the civil liberties association award that she was given — which means you are not a neutral or objective party in any debate about whether that award constitutes enough notability, in and of itself, to make its winners suitable for inclusion in an encyclopedia or not. You keep trying to dismiss that as irrelevant to the matter — but it's not. The question of whether an award is notable enough to constitute a valid notability claim in an article about its winners or nominees is entirely a question of the degree to which reliable source media outlets do or don't cover the granting of that award as being a news story in its own right. Major media outlets report it as news when a writer wins the Giller Prize, when an actor wins the Academy Award, when an activist gets named to the Order of Canada, and on and so forth — but if I can't find any article in any major media outlet in which "Connie Fournier named winner of the Ontario Civil Liberties Association award" is being reported as news in and of itself, then the award is not one that can get its winners over the notability bar in and of itself. The award's ability to get its winners over the Wikipedia notability hump is not something that the award's own organizers get to decide for themselves — the presence or absence of media coverage of that award, in sources independent of the award's own organizing committee, makes that decision for us.

::(A) That criterion only makes an article ineligible for the {{tl|blp prod}} process in particular. It does not preclude the possibility of an article being taken to AFD for a deletion discussion if there are valid reasons to reconsider its includability — it only makes it ineligible for one particular specialized deletion process, while not making it ineligible for our general deletion process. Did you miss, or misunderstand, the part of the quote you pasted where it says "This does not affect other deletion processes mentioned in BLP policy and elsewhere"?

::(B) Read WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Because we're an encyclopedia that anybody can edit, nothing is stopping anybody from trying to create any article about any topic. I could try to create an article about myself, my best friend, my spouse or my cat if I wanted to — it wouldn't be a keepable article by any stretch of the imagination, but no process exists to stop me from trying, and even as a deletable article it could linger around here for weeks or months or even years until somebody noticed, and took action on, its deletability. The existence of a problematic article about one topic, thus, does not mean that another problematic article has to be kept just because it's not any worse than the other one — it means that the other one may need to be deleted too, and just hasn't been noticed yet. So that's an argument that just backfired on you, because all of the five articles you singled out just there are now going to get reviewed, and also nominated for deletion if they're really as bad as you claim they are and can't be salvaged with better sourcing. Bearcat (talk) 17:51, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

:::Update: I've now run sourcing checks on all five of the "comparable" activists. Four of the five each garner hundreds of coverage hits in ProQuest's Canadian Newsstand Major Dailies database, and thus are salvageable and have been flagged for referencing improvement. Only Herbert Brownstein was unsalvageable, as he garnered just 15 hits of which 14 were mere namechecks of his existence — so he's been listed for deletion. Connie Fournier, by comparison, garners just 16 hits, of which most are just glancing namechecks — and all of the ones that are more substantive are already in this article as written, so there's nothing that can be added that would change my original comment. Bearcat (talk) 18:44, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

::::I think we have both presented our arguments. Your arguments are informed and strong. There is no need to talk about "backfiring" because I am acting in good faith here. I continue to hold, as I would with any comparable article, that you are applying an overly high threshold, in light of all the BLP items taken together, and not leaving out [http://thetyee.ca/News/2015/09/22/Harper-Base-Eroding/ this one], published in The Tyee, as you have done since it is presently not in the article, which is substantively about several aspects of Fournier's long-term activism. Denis.g.rancourt (talk) 19:44, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

{{outdent}}

Please reconsider -- @Bearcat: Please reconsider your position in light of the following. I was prompted by your assertion "all of the ones that are more substantive are already in this article as written, so there's nothing that can be added that would change my original comment" to do more research.

In addition to the eleven (11) sources presently in the article, which you have reviewed and interpreted, I have found the following:

• [http://thetyee.ca/News/2015/09/22/Harper-Base-Eroding/ Harper Races Against Cracks Eroding His Base], The Tyee, 22 September 2015. - Substantively about several aspects of Fournier's long-term activism (as I mentioned above).
• [http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/disgruntled-tories-consider-rebuilding-reform-party/article685317/ Disgruntled Tories consider rebuilding Reform Party, The Globe & Mail, 12 may 2007 and updated 13 March 2009]. - Connie Fournier interviewed and cited about reforming the Conservative Party of Canada.
• [http://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/macleans-live-the-public-safety-committee-scrutinizes-bill-c-51/ Maclean’s Live: The public safety committee scrutinizes Bill C-51, 23 march 2015]. - Article and video that includes Connie Fournier's intervention in the House of Commons committee on Bill C-51.
• [http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/bill-c-51-sister-of-slain-soldier-patrice-vincent-testifies-as-committee-review-resumes-1.3005604 Bill C-51: Sister of slain soldier Patrice Vincent testifies as committee review resumes, CBC News (TV and print), 23 March 2015]. - Connie fournier intervenes on Bill C-51, as a representative of the Protect Our Privacy coalition.
• [https://openparliament.ca/committees/public-safety/41-2/56/connie-fournier-1/only/ Ms. Connie Fournier (Founder, Free Dominion, Protect Our Privacy Coalition) at the Public Safety and National Security Committee, fedral government archives, 23 March 2015]. - The Protect Our Privacy Coalition was also co-represented by Canadian Civil Liberties Association executive director Sukanya Pillay. The government report also describes Fournier's role opposing section 13 of the Human Rights Code.
• [http://ipolitics.ca/2015/03/26/harper-is-losing-the-argument-on-c-51-with-conservatives/ Harper is losing the argument on C-51 … with Conservatives, iPOLITICS, 26 March 2015]. - Fournier is interviewed and cited regarding here oppositions to Bill C-51 and the CPC in the coming election.
• [http://www.cbc.ca/radio/popup/audio/listen.html?autoPlay=true&clipIds=2671477472&mediaIds=2671477525&contentarea=radio&subsection1=radio1&subsection2=currentaffairs&subsection3=the_current&contenttype=audio&title=2015/07/13/1.3149075-federal-parties-tussle-to-pull-ahead-in-a-tight-3-way-race&contentid=1.3149075 Federal parties tussle to pull ahead in a tight 3-way race, The Current, CBC Radio (national), 13 July 2015]. - Connie Fournier interviewed about the coming fedral election.
• CHQR 770AM radio, Calgary, Alberta, 17-minute interview with Connie Fournier: [http://www.newstalk770.com/2015/06/24/conservatives-do-oppose-bill-c-51/ Conservatives who oppose Bill C-51, posted 24 June 2015] and the [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j80BqSEMhFE sound recording on YouTube]. - All about Fournier's opposition to Bill C-51.

Denis.g.rancourt (talk) 15:42, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

::Being a giver of soundbite in an article about something else does not assist a person's notability at all — she has to be the subject of the coverage, not a commentator within coverage of some other subject, for that coverage to count toward getting her over WP:GNG. So exactly zero of these new sources are game-changers. Bearcat (talk) 15:23, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

:::Individually (e.g. [http://thetyee.ca/News/2015/09/22/Harper-Base-Eroding/ Tyee, 22 september 2015]) and together the now nineteen (19) sources (mostly renown national media) provide "significant coverage" of Canadian activist Connie Fournier's activism. Contrary to your reading, the sources do not interview Fournier solely for information about other subjects unconnected to her. Rather, the sources expressly state and imply that Fournier is a main persona in these "other subjects", and describe and cite Fournier's own activism in these "other subjects". Look at all the sources, and the three independent prizes, together. Even fewer of these should be sufficient to pass the notability threshold. Her [https://www.gg.ca/honour.aspx?id=253312&t=13&ln=Fournier Queen's Diamond Jubilee award] was reported in The Tyee as: [http://thetyee.ca/News/2015/03/25/Right-Wing-Website-Fights-C51/ "Long-time Conservative supporter Connie Fournier, left, received a Queen's Diamond Jubilee Medal for her work on free speech in 2013."], with photograph of Fournier receiving the award. Denis.g.rancourt (talk) 17:19, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

• Delete (or redirect to Free Dominion) as nominator and as per Bearcat's arguments. I think Denis.g.rancourt is somewhat embellishing Fournier's profile. She was one of tens of thousands of people who campaigned against Bill C-51 and as far as her opposition was notable it was through her temporary re-activation of Free Dominion and was not the key or even a main organizer (or as far as I can tell, an organizer at all) of the campaign. Similarly, she was one of many people who opposed Section 13 of the Human Rights Act and again was not an organizer of that campaign. Her notability as far as the lawsuits goes relates to Free Dominion and is covered by that article. Lastly, her opposition to Stephen Harper's re-election is no more notable than that of millions of other Canadians and the self-published book she wrote was not notable enough to be covered or reviewed by any notable media. Selwyn Floyd (talk) 21:01, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

• Keep If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list. WP:NOTE At least two third-party sources should cover the subject, to avoid idiosyncratic articles based upon a single perspective. WP:THIRDPARTY

There are many more than two reliable third-party sources that are independent of the subject in this case. I can find no Wikipedia policy that states that a source weighs less toward notability if the media outlet has sought out the subject's opinion as an expert on a certain topic, as opposed to simply writing about the subject herself. Indeed, it would stand to reason that being sought by the media as a commentator would tend to point to greater notability, not less. Certainly, an interview is more than a "trivial mention", even if she is not the "main topic of the source material". WP:GNG

In any case, this article was barely created before it was nominated for speedy deletion and, when that failed, this AfD process was initiated. This is contrary to the policy on article quality that states that attempts should be make to improve the article, and to give others time to improve it rather than immediately propose for deletion. WP:AQU WP:BEFORE Given the time frame involved, it seems this would be an overzealous deletion. What's the rush? WP:RUSH

All that being said, if there is no rough consensus, a page should be kept, so I say, "keep". WP:DPAFD 70.210.192.175 (talk) 22:35, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

(Note to admin: the above is from a single purpose account and is its only edit)

:IP-175, I agree with you that those particular interviews in the media are valid sources for notability, not because Fournier is called upon to give "expert" information, but rather because she is called upon to comment on matters of public interest, which are connected to her person, such as her own opinions and activism on Section 13 and on Bill C-51. A specialized expert that simply contributes objective content is not necessarily notable. In the case in question here, Fournier is called upon not because she is an expert but rather because she is herself a prominent player in the political issues. Denis.g.rancourt (talk) 00:13, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

• Delete. She goood at getting her publicity published; we shouldn't appropriately be another source for her. DGG ( talk ) 18:24, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

::DGG: Which of the 19 independent sources (many national media) are examples of Fournier "getting her publicity published"? And what exactly is "her publicity"? Denis.g.rancourt (talk) 18:30, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

• delete she has a self-published blog and hosts a blog where people write foul things. marginally notable and the effort to promote her pushes this over the edge to deletion for me; we don't have bandwidth to maintain article of people of marginal notability who are being promoted in WP. Jytdog (talk) 15:48, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

::Jytdog: The question is notability. The characterization "she has a self-published blog and hosts a blog where people write foul things" is not a criterion and is not relevant. Likewise, an alleged "effort to promote her" is not a criterion, is not relevant to notability, and is a personal attack if it refers to an editor's work on WP. Denis.g.rancourt (talk) 00:48, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:58, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Conservatism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:58, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

• Delete at best as this article is still questionable at best, despite the current article's appearance. Delete for now at best and restart later if needed. SwisterTwister talk 22:16, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
• Delete: Some folks seem to believe the majority of sources are reliable. Here's my assessment of them:
• [http://news.nationalpost.com/full-comment/connie-fournier-principled-conservatives-ought-to-denounce-tory-power-grab National Post]: Written by her - as a primary source it's not reliable for establishing notability and only reliable for establishing that she said something specific at that
• [http://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/conservatives-made-deal-to-quiet-dissent-on-c-51-gun-group-says/ Macleans]: Only one mention of her in the whole article, thus only a "passing mention", not reliable for establishing notability
• [http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/bill-c-51-hearings-national-firearms-association-pulls-out-1.3003782 CBCNews]: Only one mention of her in the whole article, thus only a "passing mention", not reliable for establishing notability
• [http://ipolitics.ca/2015/06/22/why-conservatives-want-c-51-killed-and-what-theyre-doing-about-it/ iPolitics]: Written by her - as a primary source it's not reliable for establishing notability and only reliable for establishing that she said something specific at that
• [http://thetyee.ca/News/2015/03/25/Right-Wing-Website-Fights-C51/ The Tyee]: Entirely an interview, even the non-quoted portions say "Fournier said..." or "...said Fournier" - as a primary source, it's not reliable for establishing notability.
• [https://books.google.com/books?id=Zkb9sgEACAAJ Betrayed by Connie Fournier]: Written by her - as a primary source it's not reliable for establishing notability and only reliable for establishing that she said something specific at that
• [http://ottawacitizen.com/news/local-news/dr-dawg-licks-his-wounds-court-rules-that-defamation-of-ottawa-blogger-was-fair-comment Ottawa Citizen]: This may actually be a reliable source, however it's regional news
• [http://ottawacitizen.com/news/local-news/court-dismisses-appeal-of-judgement-in-richard-warman-libel-case Ottawa Citizen 2]: This may actually be a reliable source, but it's only about the lawsuit that the above ref discusses, and it's regional news
• [http://www.lawyersweekly.ca/articles/2398 Lawyers Weekly]: Comprehensive coverage, seems solid enough, but again, only for the lawsuit (thinking WP:1E here)
• [http://www.canlii.org/en/on/onca/doc/2015/2015onca873/2015onca873.html Judgement for Appeal]: This is just the judgement, not media/journalistic coverage. It's not a reliable source in the context of Wikipedia. Including it is original research and isn't really necessary.
• [https://www.gg.ca/honour.aspx?id=253312&t=13&ln=Fournier The Diamond Jubilee Medal]: It's not notable if it's awarded to 70,000 other people, as noted above.

:So, for reliable sources (in the article), we're left with the two Ottawa Citizen articles (regional coverage only) and one industry specific article - all of which are specific to one event. And while not truly relevant here, I should also point out that the entire lead is sourced from the unreliable sources and actually amounts to WP:OR in and of itself. Chrisw80 (talk) 23:09, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

::Chrisw80: You seem to have stopped reading too early. You covered the 11 sources in the present article. You were silent on the 8 additional sources listed and described above, for a total of 19. (Not that I agree with your evaluation of the 11 original sources.) Denis.g.rancourt (talk) 01:30, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

:::{{u|Denis.g.rancourt}}, I did read them, but I didn't feel it necessary, appropriate, or constructive to bash on each and every one - I felt sticking with what was incorporated into the article was best. I did not see enough difference between what was included in the article, and the supplementary references provided above to make it necessary. My assessments of each source are based on a thorough reading and understanding of WP:RS. It's an interesting and informative read, and if you haven't read it, I would recommend it. If after reading WP:RS, you disagree with my assessment, I would be happy to discuss the specific points you find inadequate in my assessment. Thank your for taking the time to reply! Chrisw80 (talk) 02:41, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

::::Chrisw80: Thank you for your clarification, and for your reading suggestion. I fail to understand how you can justify: "I felt sticking with what was incorporated into the article was best". I think the 8 other sources merit as much attention a priori as the 11 that you chose to specifically critique. Since you have already read the other 8, please provide your assessment on them individually, for the benefit of this discussion. Otherwise, it is difficult for me to see how you can discount them, as I have already explained above why I think each one is a valid source that adds to the question of notability. Maybe you could explain where you think I am incorrect in my individual assessments. After that, maybe we could discuss the cumulative value of the 19 sources taken together, since most are unambiguously independent and reliable. Denis.g.rancourt (talk) 03:58, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

:::::Hello {{u|Denis.g.rancourt}}, there is no reasonable expectation that I provide an analysis of every source proffered to support the potential notability of an article. I gave a guideline based analysis of more than half of the 19 total to support my position based on policy and guidelines (which is more than most editors do at AfD). To be clear, it's not about the quantity of the sources, it's about the quality. The "cumulative value" of a large number of unreliable sources has no meaning as it becomes original research at that point. I chose the ones in the article to analyze as they should be the ones that BEST represent the subject's notability. My analysis was based concisely on guidelines from WP:RS and WP:GNG. Thank you. Chrisw80 (talk) 05:48, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

::::::Chrisw80: Given the primary importance of quality, which you explain, let us start with one of the 8 sources that you did not expressly assess. This is what I wrote above about it: "[http://thetyee.ca/News/2015/09/22/Harper-Base-Eroding/ Harper Races Against Cracks Eroding His Base], The Tyee, 22 September 2015. - Substantively about several aspects of Fournier's long-term activism (as I mentioned above)." What is your argument to discount this one, which you have already read? After we complete this one, we can move on to another. I see several quality sources that address notability. Denis.g.rancourt (talk) 13:50, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

{{od}}

Hello {{u|Denis.g.rancourt}}, as I mentioned before, there is no reasonable expectation that I provide a detailed analysis for every source proffered to support the potential notability of an article. I have looked at all the sources and come to my conclusion, as is my prerogative. I will give you ny short analysis of this one extra source as a courtesy, I do not intend to provide any more analysis of further sources despite your seeming wish that I do so. If you wish to dispute the analyses that I have performed already, please be specific. I may choose to look at further proffered sources, but I will not provide any analysis for discussion. This source is not about Fournier, but about Harper. While there is some in-depth discussion of her, it is not comprehensive. It might help establish notability per WP:GNG and WP:BASIC, but it's not nearly enough to tip the scales for me, nor are the other sources proffered. Thank you. Chrisw80 (talk) 18:40, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

• Delete - not enough in-depth coverage from independent reliable sources to show that they meet WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:58, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

{{clear}}

: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.