Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Adrian Lang

< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion
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. Not relisting given the level of SPAs, socks and canvassing. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 19:18, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Adrian Lang

edit
Adrian Lang (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This page reads like a resume/autobiography. There are not sufficient secondary sources to show notability. Agtx (talk) 17:44, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep The fact that this page is even being considered for deletion is reflective of a general ignorance of the Canadian cultural community. Ms. Lang and her sister act as examples and mentors to young professional Canadian woman. Ms. Lang does a great service to Canadians, both through her work as a litigator and through her charitable and professional contributions. Please do not dismiss this as self-promotion simply because she is a woman who has achieved prominence. Canadians deserve recognition too!!! ProudCanadian2000 (talk) 00:41, 7 May 2015 (UTC) — ProudCanadian2000 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
"Acting as examples and mentors to young professional Canadian women" has nothing to do with Wikipedia's notability standards. Reliable source coverage is the absolute be-all and end-all of whether a person qualifies for an article or not. Bearcat (talk) 15:18, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment To expand a bit, Ms. Lang may be a fantastic lawyer and a role model, but that doesn't make her sufficiently notable for WP. We usually look for significant coverage in secondary sources. Here, we see almost entirely primary sources: Ms. Lang's Twitter, the websites of organizations of which Ms. Lang is a member, Ms. Lang's employer. The only secondary source seems to be a picture of Ms. Lang taken at an event, which does not have any commentary attached. It looks to me from usernames like the many of the folks above are lawyers, so I'd encourage them to read the guidelines at WP:BIO and consider how they apply to this case. I certainly don't want folks to get the idea that I've nominated this because I have ill will toward Ms. Lang or Canada. That's not what this is about. Agtx (talk) 03:52, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:40, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:40, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:40, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment As there appear to be many new users/Single-purpose accounts on here, I've added them all to a sockpuppet investigation. Apologies in advance to anyone who is editing legitimately, but I'm certain some of the users aren't. Joseph2302 (talk) 13:42, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment from the newspaper database, there are articles that can confirm some of this content where she is quoted (in articles about court decisions like "Bell suspends late fee for TV following ruling; The Ottawa Citizen, 22 Dec 2008") or mentioned (involving some The Canadian Stage items) but I don't think those individually meet the criteria for "Significant coverage". The most substantial piece is "East meets West in fight for rights; National Post, 04 July 2009" about a fundraiser held at her house that made a national newspaper but that is all I can find for coverage in media outlets. maclean (talk) 19:28, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Per Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Rachelksilber, I have removed Lawyergal's comments, as they are a confirmed sockpuppet of Rachelksilber. Joseph2302 (talk) 14:58, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I am the original creator of this article. I'm not sure why lawyergal is considered a "sock-puppet" but I don't know who "lawyergal" is and he/she is certainly not a sock-puppet of mine - but could potentially be a colleague. I have added more secondary sources and urge you to strongly consider keeping this article. Ms. Lang is a well-recognized member of Canadian society and a person of considerable notability in Toronto.Rachelksilber (talk) 15:17, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Per Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Rachelksilber/Archive, all the SPAs comments (except for Rachelksilber) have been struck out. Joseph2302 (talk) 19:18, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Most of what is on the page is very poorly supported by the references, and therefore should not be allowed to stand. Of the references there, I only see mentions of her, and her name in quite a few membership lists. It is possible that this person will be notable in the future, given her activity, but I don't see it today. LaMona (talk) 20:55, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete Changing my vote, the sources looked good, but really aren't, so they probably fail WP:GNG. Joseph2302 (talk) 20:58, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails WP:GNG the award from the Canadian Corporate Counsel is not sufficient and and none of the other references give indepth coverage about the subject.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 11:38, 13 May 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Adrian_Lang&oldid=1137541557"