Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dahti Tsetso

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 keep. ✗plicit 00:39, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dahti Tsetso

Dahti Tsetso (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:BLP of a deputy director of an organization, not properly referenced as passing a Wikipedia notability criterion. As always, being deputy director of an organization is not an automatic notability freebie in and of itself, in the absence of passing WP:GNG on the sourcing -- but the references here are a mixture of primary sources that are not support for notability at all (e.g. her staff profile on the website of the organization, a PDF on the self-published personal website of a consultant, government press releases) with glancing namechecks of her existence as a provider of soundbite in articles about other things. The only source that's actually about Dahti Tsetso in any non-trivial sense comes from a local radio station in a small city, and thus is not enough to singlehandedly get her over GNG all by itself.
For added bonus, this was created in draftspace and then got arbitrarily moved to mainspace by another editor (not the creator) who had only been around Wikipedia for about a month, and thus likely had little understanding of how Wikipedia's notability standards actually work.
Nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt her from having to be the subject of more than just one piece of coverage from a smalltown radio station. Bearcat (talk) 16:09, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Northwest Territories. Bearcat (talk) 16:09, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. This article is already extremely well cited, but I added more citations, from the many that are available. Nominator just seems hung up on her title, as opposed to her accomplishments. Yuchitown (talk) 15:07, 30 May 2022 (UTC)Yuchitown[reply]

No, the article wasn't "well cited" — as I explained in my nomination statement, it was referenced entirely to the self-published websites of organizations she's directly affiliated with (which are not notability-supporting sources) and references which briefly quoted her as a giver of soundbite but not the subject under discussion (which are not notability-supporting sources), with only one piece from one small local community radio station that counted as real or notability-assisting media coverage at all — and the only new sources you added are still ones that just quote her as a giver of soundbite. People do not get over our notability standards by being a speaker in coverage of other things, they get over our notability standards by being the subject that other people are speaking or writing about, and there's still only one such source present here at all. Bearcat (talk) 19:12, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I added two citations from scholarly journals. Seven previous citations come from well established media outlets (CBC, Globe and Mail, etc.). There are many more sources from which to draw. The fact that groups like Nature Conservancy Canada invite her to be a public speaker indicates she is making notable contributions to the field. I keep seeing efforts from Wikipedia to try to address gender imbalances and lack of coverage from Indigenous peoples, especially from remote regions. I cannot fathom why one would want to delete a perfectly fine BLP. Yuchitown (talk) 17:27, 2 June 2022 (UTC)Yuchitown[reply]

Firstly, being from a well-established media outlet is not the only test that a source has to pass in order to help support notability — in addition to being from an established media outlet, a source also has to fall on the correct side of a "substantively about her" vs. "merely glancingly namechecking her existence in the process of being fundamentally about something else" test, which the CBC and Globe and Mail sources in the article do not. They merely quote her as a giver of soundbite in articles about other things, which is not support for notability because she is not the subject that is being spoken about.

Secondly, the fact that groups like Nature Conservancy Canada invite her to be a public speaker can support notability if reliable source media outlets do third party journalism that treats her speech as a news story; it does not support notability if you have to source the speech to the Nature Conservancy's own self-published website about itself because independent third party analysis of the significance of the speech in media is lacking. It's the presence or absence of third-party media coverage about the speech, not the fact of the speech per se, that establishes the notability of a speech.

Thirdly, as important as it is for Wikipedia to improve our coverage of underrepresented groups, we do not do that by creating special lowered notability standards for women and people of colour, by which they're exempted from having to be the subject of sufficient media coverage to pass WP:GNG. Bearcat (talk) 16:41, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Keep. I'll explain why:

1. This source is the only reasonable one with regards to notability. It's been described as a local radio station, but with Dene being a nation, I think we should see it as a national radio station. https://cklbradio.com/2021/02/09/im-keen-and-im-eager-fort-simpson-local-becomes-new-deputy-director-for-indigenous-leadership-initiative/
2. There are lots of brief mentions in other sources, both news and academic. WP:BASIC does allow us to establish notability on the basis of combining lots of other sources, assuming there is at least one good source
3. I think we must be mindful that the Dene nation speak Northern Athabaskan languages and I doubt most editors here can speak that, so we're likely missing sources. We should be thoughtful about that and plenty wikipedia guidelines allow an assumption of notability when language is likely a factor in editors needing more time to find sources. It feels weird to quote WP:NSPORT here, but check out the FAQ to see what I'm talking about. CT55555 (talk) 17:50, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per WP:HEY. I see plenty of good sources, from The Narwal to CBC, that have been added by Yuchitown. I don't see that it's so bad as to be deleted outright. It just needs more TLC. Has anyone contacted an expert, such as Edward Vajda? Am I missing something? Bearian (talk) 19:00, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - I see only one questionable source, the rest look reliable based on the cultural and ethnic background of the subject and they offer her significant enough coverage to maintain the start-class status. I see no reason to delete this article on a notable Indigenous woman. Like others have mentioned here, the article needs some additional TLC but there is no doubt about her notability or her contributions to her First Nation. No need to post links to guidelines and policies as most have already been posted. --ARoseWolf 19:23, 2 June 2022 (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.