Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kim Siever

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. ✗plicit 13:55, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kim Siever

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Local journalist (blogger?) and unsuccessful political candidate that does not pass WP:GNG, WP:JOURNALIST, or WP:NPOL. Issue isn't COI (disclosed), it's the overall notability of the subject. Many references are to articles by the subject - this isn't a substitute for *independent* articles *about* the subject. Madg2011 (talk) 13:54, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Madg2011 (talk) 13:54, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Madg2011 (talk) 13:54, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Madg2011 (talk) 13:54, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Alberta-related deletion discussions. Madg2011 (talk) 13:54, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

For whatever it’s worth, this article was submitted for AfC review and was independently assessed and approved. —Kmsiever (talk) 17:49, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Looking at online sources only, the only reliable sources in the article are passing mentions of the subject or links to the subject's social media feeds. There is no significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. The rest are primary sources. I'm sure the offline sources are no better. The fact that the primary editor has been the subject himself does not help the situation. At this point, as the subject is running in the upcoming Canadian federal election, this amounts to undue weight on the candidate. Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:00, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. People don't get Wikipedia articles just for running as candidates in elections they have not won, so neither running for city council in 2001 nor his current candidacy get him in the door at all — and actors are not "inherently" notable just because it's possible to use IMDb and the self-published primary source websites of theatre companies as technical verification that acting roles have been had, but require evidence of distinction (such as a Canadian Screen Award nomination, or other reliably sourced evidence of the significance of said acting roles). Obviously no prejudice against recreation (with better sources) on or after September 20 if he wins a seat in Parliament (spoiler alert: very unlikely, given that he's running in Alberta but not as a Conservative), but nothing here is already grounds for a Wikipedia article about him to exist today. And yeah, the fact that he started the article himself doesn't do him any favours either (though it isn't in and of itself the killing blow.) Bearcat (talk) 13:43, 24 August 2021 (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.