Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wendelin Fraser

: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 without prejudice. Pending the results of the recount. If a neutral editor wishes to recreate this article with reliable sources, it won't be subject to CSD G4. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:56, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

=[[Wendelin Fraser]]=

:{{la|Wendelin Fraser}} – (View AfDView log{{•}} [http://toolserver.org/~snottywong/cgi-bin/votecounter.cgi?page=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Wendelin_Fraser Stats])

:({{Find sources|Wendelin Fraser}})

While it's certainly possible that her past work as a faculty member at Mount Royal University might confer sufficient notability per WP:ACADEMIC for the article to be kept, as written this article doesn't actually demonstrate that — it's sourced almost entirely to invalid primary sources (e.g. the university's own press releases, etc.); its sole non-primary source is specifically about her candidacy (and even that source still skirts the edge of primary, as it's the student newspaper of the university where she was a faculty member); even if you discount the primary sourcing issue it still makes numerous entirely unsourced biographical claims; and its overall tone is quite peacocky ("community service has been prodigious", etc.) Fundamentally, it's quite clear that as currently written, this article's primary intention was not to be an encyclopedia article about a notable acdemic, but rather a campaign brochure for an unelected political candidate. Furthermore, the article was created and edited almost entirely by two anonymous IP numbers with no other contribution history outside of this article — meaning that while it's impossible to know for sure, there's a high likelihood here of WP:COI editing by her own campaign staff.

I'd be more than happy to withdraw this nomination if somebody can Heymann it up into a properly keepable article about a notable academic — but as currently formulated, it's merely a bad article about a person who fails to meet WP:POLITICIAN. In the absence of major improvements, delete. Bearcat (talk) 19:50, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 19:59, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Comment. I think I am going to wait until after the recount to comment further. 117Avenue (talk) 06:19, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

::If she wins the recount, I'll certainly withdraw the nomination (and/or create a new replacement article if necessary). But even if that happens, the article will still require a serious cleanup job and won't be able to stand looking like this. Bearcat (talk) 17:32, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Delete as per Bearcat.--Brian Dell (talk) 08:02, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:08, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:08, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Delete as hopelessly promotional, regardless of the election. Rewriting this sort of utter advertising is beyond my ability, It needs to be restarted from scratch if she becomes notable as a politician. If not, I'm not convinced about meeting WP:PROF, but anyone who wants is welcome to start over. If this weren't so close to closing as a delete, I'd consider Speedy G11. DGG ( talk ) 23:42, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

: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.