Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robert J. Vezina

{{AFD help}}

:{{la|Robert J. Vezina}} – (View AfDView log)

:({{Find sources AFD|title=Robert J. Vezina}})

Rolling the dice and taking my chances... Hugely promotional piece of peacockery (written by a paid editor, and it shows!) on a person of at best borderline notability. There are sources, yes, but lest we forget, even solid sources (and I'm not saying these are necessarily solid, even if they are many) only raise the presumption of notability; they don't guarantee it. Given that AfD is not cleanup, I did first think of cutting out all the promo fluff and trimming this down to its essence only, but TBH I'm not sure quite what if anything would remain. Fails WP:BIO, and in my view fails also WP:GNG. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 05:46, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

:Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. DoubleGrazing (talk) 05:46, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

:Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. DoubleGrazing (talk) 05:46, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

:Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. DoubleGrazing (talk) 05:46, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

:Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Quebec-related deletion discussions. DoubleGrazing (talk) 05:46, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

• Delete with impunity. I'd never heard of him before, but many of the things mentioned in the article are local and familiar. He's a successful local businessman with some local newspaper coverage. There's nothing notable here by our standards. The accomplishments are nothing spectacular. The puffery, on the other hand is spectacular. I think the very highest standard of notability has to be applied here, as he's a former PR professional, presumably with access to people who publish sources. All coverage seems to be either local or not independent, and all quite banal. --- Possibly (talk) 06:04, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
• Delete I tagged this for notability having read it three times to try and identify what exactly would make the subject notable. I’m still not clear. The article looks like PR based on sources which are also based on PR. The subject has a successful career in pr and event management but there’s really nothing here to warrant a bio article. Mccapra (talk) 08:20, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
• Delete that's a roll of a six-sided set of sixes, right there. Fails GNG, may even pass G11. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 08:30, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
• Delete per above. The person's accomplishments do not make him notable. LSGH (talk) (contributions) 10:23, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
• discussion Is it absolutely necessary to be so unpleasant ? I have copy-pasted here this traduction of the French article thinking that the admissibility was similar (at least 2 national centered sources on at least 2 differents years). La Presse and The Gazette are considered as national sources on the French Wikipedia.
  I understand that each Wikipedia have their own rules and I'll accept your jugement here, but there's pillars and I am especting that you'll respect the fourth one. Simon Villeneuve (talk) 14:15, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

:: I don't see anyone being unpleasant above. Perhaps you're viewing their comments on the subject and article through the lens of your COI? Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 14:52, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

:::You're kidding me? {{Talk quote inline|Hugely promotional piece of peacockery (written by a paid editor, and it shows!)}}, {{Talk quote inline|The accomplishments are nothing spectacular. The puffery, on the other hand is spectacular.}} , G11. Don't need COI glasses to smell all the contempt here, even with my bad English. Simon Villeneuve (talk) 18:20, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

::::With respect, when you embark upon writing, for money, promo pieces on people of questionable notability, you really ought to expect some fairly robust pushback; don't you think? Best, --DoubleGrazing (talk) 19:56, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

:::::

:::::{{Talk quote inline|promo pieces on people of questionable notability}} that is your PoV.
As I said, I think that there's a lot of good sources about this person. If you can't assume good faith and just want to see that I'm a paid editor writing a piece of promo, even if I have created thousands of bio and I've been paid for about 5 of them, it is your choice. Personnaly, I think that it is you who have anti-paid-editing glasses, that you can't make the difference between a promo and a bio where all informations are no more and no less than facts sourced by independant sources. Yes, it didn't put in light the failures of the personnality, but if someone want to add them with independant sources, nobody will fight it. But this is also a PoV.
The problem here is your denigration of my work. It don't respect one of the pillars of the project. It create a straw man of my work and me and divert the discussion on feelings and not on facts. We can't juge an article with things like "I've never heard of him before".
I think that the mains questions are : "do there's good sources about this person and do the article use them correctly". Simon Villeneuve (talk) 12:20, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

::::::Firstly, I would kindly ask that you do not start with personal attacks. Despite what you seem to think, the comments so far have been aimed at the article subject or the way it has been written; you are now starting to attack other editors (while pleading civility yourself), which is not acceptable.

::::::Secondly, your assessment of the quality of the sources cited clearly differs from those of the majority here. Perhaps instead of accusing me and/or others of POV, it might help to take a look in the mirror and ask why that is?

::::::Thirdly, whether you have written 'thousands' of bios isn't what is being considered (not yet, at least); we are discussing this particular bio. To say that you have visited a bank branch thousands of times without incident doesn't really ameliorate the fact on one of your recent visits you decided to rob the place. And for someone to point that out isn't the offence here, so appealing to one of the 'pillars' is unlikely to suffice as defence.

::::::PS: Incidentally, you say you have been paid for five bios. I have previously asked you on your talk page to disclose any COI, and {{u|Possibly}} expressly asked if you have been paid for any other articles than this. I note that you have not responded to either question. --DoubleGrazing (talk) 04:59, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

• Delete Puff piece on non-notable figure Dexxtrall (talk) 15:23, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
• Delete. Firstly, GNG is not just "count the footnotes and keep anybody who passes an arbitrary number", so he isn't automatically notable enough for inclusion in Wikipedia just because the article has the words "La Presse" and "Montreal Gazette" in it — we also test the sources for things like (a) the depth of how substantively any given source is or isn't about him and (b) the context of what they're covering him for, and not every possible source is of equal GNG-building value. Glancing namechecks of his existence in sources whose core subject is something else do not help to establish his notability; "social notes" columns do not help to establish his notability; local coverage of him in local interest contexts, such as organizing local events or winning minor local awards, does not secure his notability; and on and so forth.
  Secondly, please read WP:WAX if you think "it's a straight translation of an article that already exists on the French Wikipedia" is a reason why the article needs to be kept — especially since the maker of that argument was also the creator of the article on the French Wikipedia, and even the French Wikipedia's inclusion standards, while not completely identical to the English Wikipedia's inclusion standards across the board, are still much, much stricter than "anybody who's gotten their name into any newspaper twice", so the article may not necessarily have genuinely passed their inclusion standards either.
  Nothing stated in the article passes any of our subject-specific inclusion criteria, and even just basic GNG is considerably more complex, and takes a lot more factors into account, than just "article has 17 footnotes in it". Bearcat (talk) 13:46, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
• :Where did I say that GNG is to count footnotes ? That enwiki criteria are the same than frwiki ? That the article is on French Wikipedia and must be keept here because of that?
  I didn't say that all the article sources are centered on him, just that there's at least 2 national sources centered on him on 2 differents years (Petrowski and the one of Campbell about BBCM) and that this is a general criteria of notability on French Wikipedia for bio. I have thought it was similar here and it seems I was wrong.
  This will be my last post. I know too much that kind of discussion. Your idea is made and anything I'll say wouldn't change it. Simon Villeneuve (talk) 16:22, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
• Delete - clearly not enough in-depth coverage from independent, reliable sources to meet WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:15, 19 May 2021 (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.