Talk:Jo-Ann Roberts

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• Jo-ann roberts.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 06:06, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Notability tag

Since the article survived AfD I removed the notability tag and replaced it with one asking for more references. Me-123567-Me (talk) 22:11, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Me-123567-Me, I wouldn't say it survived AfD with its notability not in question (it closed with no consensus, though delete may be slightly favoured), so I have re-added that tag as a secondary tag to your verification tag, which was a good add. For concision, I wrapped the tags in a multiple issues template. Doug Mehus T·C 22:18, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Dmehus, I absolutely disagree that the notability tag should be there and I will start an RFC on the topic. Me-123567-Me (talk) 23:35, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

Me-123567-Me, There's no harm in keeping it. Her notability is not yet established. In fact, there was no consensus at AfD, and Bearcat, S Marshall, and Harizotoh9 made various points—each for differing reasons. Doug Mehus T·C 23:37, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

As the RfC below has closed, I will say that I think her notability is cemented now that she is the interim leader of the federal Greens. She has notability as a prior candidate, long time journalist, then deputy leader and now leader. I think tagging this for notability or considering it for deletion now is preposterous, but I don't think starting a second RfC about the tag would be particularly helpful, so I will leave it for now, and see if others' views change over time.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 21:29, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

RFC about notability tag

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Given that this article "survived" AfD as "no consensus," is it appropriate to leave the notability tag on it? Me-123567-Me (talk) 23:37, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

• Support leaving notability tag in per the reason(s) of Bearcat, S Marshall, and my own nomination statement in the relevant AfD discussion, though, I would have no issue with leaving it enclosed in a multiple issues tag. At the same time, it's worth noting there are multiple "tests," including WP:NBIO, WP:GNG, and WP:NPOL to which an article must pass to be notable, and it's not yet been demonstrated that she is. Party leaders are not notable by virtue of their having been appointed or elected to a given office, especially in an interim capacity.

For added clarity, I quote the XfD closer Jo-Jo Eumerus, "On the GNG question, the discussion is somewhat inconclusive as we have several assertions in either direction but apparently no specific sources cited as proof that GNG is met. [emphasis added] Regarding the NPOL question (and the more general "is she notable by virtue of being a party leader") it seems like most people here endorse the claim that NPOL is met but the counterargument offered by Bearcat that being an interim leader might not satisfy WP:NPOL criteria carries weight. [emphasis added] On balance, it seems like this has no consensus for plain deletion or keeping mainly due to the uncertain status wrt. meeting GNG criteria. It's perhaps closer to a delete than a keep due to the aforementioned lack of proof but here I don't see a clear cut enough consensus to warrant deletion." --Doug Mehus T·C 23:39, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

• Support leaving the tag for now, at least until more sources are added. The AFD has a lot of people making crystal-ball statements like "As written, appears to fail WP:GNG." The state of the article doesn't have any impact on notability, such as if it doesn't list enough sources or isn't written in a certain way. There are a ton of independent sources available and this easily passes WP:GNG. or she has a ton of independent reliable sources available or While I don't see how her political career meets WP:NPOL yet, I think that... or Coverage in the media will continue to improve, as will our article. These !votes are clearly based at least in part on coverage that is not yet in the article (either coverage they believe exists out there somewhere, or coverage that will appear in the future.) That coverage still needs to be added, so the tag should remain until it is; and if it fails to appear in the next few months, another WP:AFD will be necessary (since the rationale for keeping in the previous one will clearly be in question.) --Aquillion (talk) 10:12, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
• Support leaving tag. If there's no consensus on whether she's notable, the tag calling out that the topic of this article may not meet Wikipedia's GNG seems completely accurate. NickCT (talk) 17:27, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
• Remove tag. Biases potential editors towards editing the article if they think their work might disappear down the road. Me-123567-Me (talk) 17:45, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

  Me-123567-Me, I don't think it biases editors towards editing or improving the article. In fact, I think, if anything, the opposite may be true, in that in may encourage editors to improve the article and find significant coverage in multiple reliable sources so as to better assert notability. Doug Mehus T·C 17:47, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

• Support leaving tag. hopefully this will encourage other editors to improve the article. Bonewah (talk) 16:06, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
• Remove (Summoned by bot) tags should not be used as permanent 'badges of shame' - a 'ref improve' or other tag might be constructive encouragement. This looks like an attempt at a 'consolation prize' for failing to achieve a deletion decision at AfD. Pincrete (talk) 07:47, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

New page patrol peer review

I agree with Barkeep49's marking it reviewed. First, I think that major party leaders, even if interim, pass WP:NPOL, and in Canada I would classify the Green Party as a major party (using the determining factor that they have elected folks at the Federal level or major regional/province positions). Second, I think she passes WP:GNG: the CBC article, the CTV article (ref #5) are both in-depth, while refs #1 and #2, while not in-depth, are also not trivial. I'm just going by what's currently in the article, not doing a WP:BEFORE, as I'm simply evaluating the review process, not the AfD.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:27, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

choosing a picture

Some interesting text I noticed at https://www.votejoannroberts.ca/terms-of-service

The Green Party of Canada claims no ownership over any content submitted, posted or displayed by you using your greenparty.ca account. 'You may choose to submit, post, and display any materials your greenparty.ca account under a public license (e.g. a Creative Commons license), by manually marking your materials as such.

Based on that, we might see profiles there which have the commons license, and perhaps one where someone is posing with her? Worth a look, since this really could benefit from a picture. Olivia comet (talk) 10:46, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

- -

Update: found a possible candidate to consider here folks: 3 October 2018 mentions:

• "Photo Credit Jo-Ann Roberts meets WRGreens © by Laurel L. Russswurm and released under a Creative Commons Attribution Sharealike 2.0 Generic License"

So I could upload the entire photo to the commons, and then I think we could do a crop of just her from it to use here? Olivia comet (talk) 10:50, 19 November 2019 (UTC)