Talk:Anaida Poilievre

Notability

When I first saw that this article was made, I was wondering if her career as a senate staffer, and her marriage to Pierre Poilievre were enough to confer notability on her. She has not been as high profile as Sophie Grégoire Trudeau. I note that Jagmeet Singh's wife does not have an article about her (despite her being an influencer and a number of articles being written about her). Of course, that doesn't necessarily mean that she isn't notable, and WP:OTHERSTUFFDOESNTEXIST arguments are likely unhelpful. Anyway, a quick google news search for "Anaida Poilievre" shows coverage of her comments at the conservative party convention, articles about the threats which were made against her (and their investigation by police), and many bio articles about her and PP, like this one. I guess that is enough. Anyway, I think it is worth raising. I will post on the Canada project in the hope of getting some guidance from the community. Although, I will not be nominating this for deletion now. Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 22:11, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

• Posted to Canada Project here: Wikipedia_talk:Canadian_Wikipedians'_notice_board#Notability_of_Political_Spouses.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 22:52, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

We don't need to compare similar people, we just need to see there is WP:SIGNIFICANT coverage as per WP:GNG, which there is. T CT55555(talk) 22:53, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

Yes, I agree "other stuff", is only relevant insofar as it gets to what our general policies are here. The reason I raised it was there is a principle when considering whether a politician is notable to consider whether coverage really is "significant" or whether it is "routine coverage" which falls short of that bar. I didn't nominate this article for deletion because I am not convinced it should be deleted, though that was my first reaction. In any event, I think it is helpful to discuss and to consider WP:NPOLITICIAN and WP:NOTINHERITED. It's is positive that seems to be happening on the Canada project page, whatever is decided.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 01:22, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

I think SIGNIFICANT is less about value judgements and more about quantity of content, which there is plenty. And I plan to expand the article further shortly. I think "routine coverage" is usually used in the context of announcements and really trivial stuff. In short, I thought carefully about WP:GNG before doing this one and think it passes the bar. It also seems like she will continue to make news in the near future and there is more than a stub length of content, so I see this as not WP:TOOSOON either. I appreciate the chat approach, rather than the more bureaucratic PROD and WP:AFD process. Thanks for that. CT55555(talk) 01:26, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

Was coming here to support a I delete if it was recommended. But after reading the article... I've gained more interest in the subject and want to know more. Moxy- 21:37, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

I am content to put this issue aside, notwithstanding the discussion on Canada project. I am still not sure she is notable, but if Pierre becomes PM she will become the spouse of the prime minister of Canada and I think we would find at that time that notability had then been demonstrated. So perhaps, it isn't worth our time discussing it further now. If Pierre does not become PM though, and she remains only the spouse of a leader of the opposition, I think we should reconsider whether she is notable, and whether this article is appropriate.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 21:32, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

Date of Birth

I have twice now removed her date of birth, as the only source for this appears to be a Facebook comment. WP:BLPPRIVACY guides us to be cautious about using information that could create safety and security risks and considering the subject is notable for threats towards her, I encourage editors to be thoughtful about introducing information into the public domain. CT55555(talk) 01:38, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

I agree. We need a better source than facebook to include the DOB.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 22:32, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm going to remove it again. I'll revert if consensus changes. CT55555(talk) 22:36, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

https://www.instagram.com/p/CpbcrEnNfmR/

Here is a happy birthday message from Pierre Poilievre (Her husband), confirming indeed that her birthday is indeed March 5th. Orixp (talk) 22:45, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

That post confirms he wished her a happy birthday yesterday. It doesn't confirm it was her birthday. I would agree that probably means her birthday was yesterday, but it's not exactly confirmation. Considering the privacy/security risks, that doesn't shift my thinking about including this. CT55555(talk) 23:01, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

Names, DOB of children, non-notable family members

Editors here may wish to take note of the discussion Talk:Pierre_Poilievre#non_notable_family_members_given_name_removed taking place at Pierre Poilievre. Generally, I think we should do the same here. Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 21:30, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

I hope you saw my comment above, I've been borderline edit warring with an IP to remove date of birth from the article and would welcome a second opinion on this. CT55555(talk) 22:29, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

Yes, I think the issue as far as the subject of this article is one of whether the information is reliable (from a WP:RS) and one that is not self published. For better or worse, we seem to be accepting for now that Anaida Poilievre is notable since we have an article about her. I have some doubts about that as noted above, but unless someone nominates this article for deletion due to WP:N concerns, I think it is appropriate to include her birthdate, if from reliable sources. It is different for non-notable children, or other family members. Even if we can find RS for their birthdates, we should not include that information.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 22:37, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

Unused sources

If anyone can get past the paywall, there is an article here:

https://www.hilltimes.com/story/2023/05/15/anaida-poilievre-regarded-as-pierre-poilievres-secret-weapon-in-next-election-say-politicos/387045/ CT55555(talk) 04:23, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

Suggestion to remove unrelated Info in career section

I think we should consider removing the paragraph about the false claim by Chris Sky that Anaida Poilievre was the CEO of Switch Health. It's not really related to her career or personal life, and it's a false claim anyway. Including this might unintentionally spread misinformation, even if we've clarified that it's not true. Plus, it doesn't really add anything to the understanding of Poilievre's life or work. If it is determined to be relevant I don't believe it is in the correct section. Perhaps controversies would be more correct. However, I believe that section should be used quite sparingly and I would advocate deletion altogether.

Looking forward to hearing your thoughts. Thanks! 108.173.31.58 (talk) 17:32, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

108.173.31.58 here I created an account. I'm new to Wikipedia so please let me know if I am not following the proper protocols for a deletion request ArtVandelayImporter (talk) 17:37, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

@ArtVandelayImporter, it does seem a meaningless bit of false controversy to me, too. @CT55555:, what are your thoughts? Schazjmd (talk) 17:45, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

The false claims made news. Their falseness made Agence France-Presse and is accurately presented.

I took a look at other more commonly edited articles to see if we tend to include false allegations about people. I did see we do:

1. Gates and the projects of his foundation have been the subject of many conspiracy theories that proliferate on Facebook and elsewhere. He has been implausibly accused of attempting to depopulate the world
2. also here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sandy_Hook_Elementary_School_shooting#Alex_Jones

But then I see the Hillary Clinton article didn't include Pizza Gate misinformation, so we are not consistent it seems.

I added this content, so I did think it was important. That was also in the context of people questioning notability and me wanting to demonstrate ongoing news coverage of her.

So I'm weakly leaning to include, but I'm already outnumbered here, and we do this on consensus. Hoping maybe more opinions will help us reach consensus. CT55555(talk) 17:48, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

Input from more editors would be great. After re-reading the article a few times, I'm wondering if that text (condensed) might not work better as a footnote to Early in the COVID-19 pandemic she supported restrictions, but later became critical of public health measures in Canada. Something like Poilievre was falsely accused of being the CEO of Switch Health, a company that won contracts from the Government of Canada to undertake COVID-19 testing.

References

Schazjmd (talk) 18:06, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

I agree with moving it. My primary concern is controversies in the career section would distract from her actual career. We could also turn the rape section into a general harassment section and include this in it. User:ArtVandelayImporter — Preceding undated comment added 18:33, 3 August 2023 (UTC)