Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Deb Hutton (2nd nomination)

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. Vanamonde93 (talk) 23:11, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Deb Hutton

AfDs for this article:

[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)

Virtually non-existent, secondary, reliable source coverage for this individual in Canada, fails WP:NBASIC. Recreating previously AfD’d page (from 2006) but there has been an ounce of more coverage. Only really covered in one article (about her volunteer role as a “fixer” after a scandal) and the rest are passing coverage, mostly in what would probably be considered WP:NINI & WP:BIOFAMILY. She the wife of Tim Hudak.

Lots of trivia in the article, in an apparent attempt to bolster notability, such as passing mentions of affiliations, prior employers, or the fact that she was part of a debate prep “acting” the part of a well known politician. Even the bulk of the fixer story was basic quoting of either her or other people directly involved. While has worked with politicians, does not qualify as a politician for notability/BLP requirements.

Otherwise nobody seems to be really covering her.

Attempts to handle through notability tagging and talking with article creator have failed. Independent research has uncovered precious little for a WP:BIO.

Not to be confused with either of the two more notable Deborah Hutton’s of which come up in search results even for Deb.

Also was mentioned in Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Jaime_Watt which was also deleted, but now a redirect.

Would be okay with merging some into the husband, but there is precious more than a sentence or three worth moving. TiggerJay (talk) 06:40, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. TiggerJay (talk) 06:40, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Politics, and Canada. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 07:03, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

1. 2 articles discuss her role in the Greenbelt scandal. This fact is about her and not her relationship with Tim Hudak.

2. She was not Tim Hudak's wife when she became Premier Harris's chief of staff, that has nothing to do with her marriage. I think that there may be offline sources that cover this in greater detail, given the time period in question.

3. She is an independent political actor. She writes political columns which have been discussed: https://www.ombudsman.on.ca/resources/speeches-and-articles/speeches/2019/politicians-cannot-do-the-work-of-independent-officers-of-the-legislature-(qp-briefing) https://www.thestar.com/opinion/contributors/how-the-right-defends-policy-lite-brown-hepburn/article_1206a6f9-ea8b-56fd-9b3a-cab27386e28f.html I haven't been able to source the original columns yet or encyclopedic sources, but I think there's potential here.

4. There's another article which provides substantial coverage about her currently linked in the article and it has nothing to do with Greenbelt scandal.

5. She currently on the Metrolinx board of directors. Metrolinx is a controversial agency, and I may be able to find sources that are about her role as a director specifically. Such a source would could be paid, such as a transportation or engineering magazine, given the niche topic.

I may prematurely moved the article from draftspace. I think the most appropriate action is that it is moved back to draftspace, given the likelihood that more information can be uncovered. Legend of 14 (talk) 07:48, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I also found this article: https://nationalpost.com/news/politics/ontario-liberals-target-conservative-leader-hudaks-wife-over-cancelled-gas-plant. That's 4 independent sources, with substantial coverage, about 3 different topics. Legend of 14 (talk) 08:02, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Extended discussion about the merits of those point

To be clear the criteria for inclusion is not about simply having reliable sources, nor if you know that it is TRUE, but rather if it meets specific criteria for being notable. See the linked policies in response to each of your points:

The two sources are effectively WP:PRIMARY sources as they recount who-said-what. I was unable to find any significant WP:SECONDARY coverage of this "volunteer role" such as the impact, result, or aftermath of her involvement (ie did it accomplish anything of note). Hutton's role isn't even covered in the Greenbelt scandal article.
Both Hudak and Harris are simply passing mentions of being in proximity of notable people and thus it would still fail WP:NINI. The exact timeline isn't relevant.
The reliable sources refer to her as a "longtime strategist"[3] and " one-time chief of staff" (e.g. appointed) [4] which is in the realm of politics does not mean she meets WP:POLITICIAN, and simply having those titles does not itself establish notability.
The other sig-coverage I assume you're referring to is "Tim Hudak’s daughter Miller the light of his life" -- which is an article centered around their daughter, and the only reason this article was covered was given in the title, because it was about the notable, Tim Hudak and the impact on his political aspirations their daughters illness created. WP:NINI
Per reliable sources from the article, her role on the board is a "part-time role." [5]. No indication she had any significant role, in anything having to do with any scandal of Metrolinx, and again, isn't even referenced in that article's page.
With regards to the National Post citation above, I think the title is supporting of a general lack of notability "Ontario Liberals target Conservative leader Hudak's wife over cancelled gas plant" (emphasis added) -- the article has chosen to use "leader's wife" instead of directly referencing Hutton by name in the title.

Based on the above, I suggest nothing has been provided to support WP:PERSONthe person [...] should be "worthy of notice" [...], "remarkable" or "significant, interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded". She appears to have worked in the proximity of notable people/events/companies, but does not support that she meets any of the criteria of being independently notable. Also does not meet WP:ANYBIO criteria. TiggerJay (talk) 17:43, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

1. The people who wrote the articles have no first hand knowledge of Deb Hutton's role in the Greenbelt scandal. Secondary sources including quotes from Primary sources, does not make them primary. The content not being the Greenbelt scandal article has no basis on Hutton's notability. It's a good idea for her to be mentioned by that article.

2. Sources make clear her role in appointed positions are significant. In 2003, the the Globe and Mail said that no government decisions were made without her approval: https://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/here-are-the-backroom-players/article18430066/.

3. There's more to the article than those titles. So this point is irrelevant.

4. The article gives significant coverage to Hutton's actions not just Hudak's.

5. Her not being referenced by the Metrolinx page does not support her not being notable. That article should probably mention her and other board members.

6. Just because the article title chooses to disrespectfully refer to her as Tim Hudak's wife, does not mean the article was not primarily about her.

A coverage gap in other articles does not support a finding of lack of notability. It supports a finding that the articles in question should be updated. Wikipedia is not a place were women's actions should be attributed to men, despite the fact that others may do that. Just because other sources give undue weight to Deb Hutton's relationship with her husband, does not mean we can do the same here, WP:NPOV. The national post article is about Deb Hutton and giving only passing mentions to her husband, not the other way around. Legend of 14 (talk) 18:12, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your approach to handling contentious issues does not work towards consensus building, which has been been demonstrated time and time again. ANI ANI 2 BLPN talk talk 2 As such, I can only see further responding to you here will add heat without light, so I will defer to other editors to discuss the merits of this article. TiggerJay (talk) 18:34, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I am working on adding sources to the article, so for now this will be a comment. Thus far the best WP:SIGCOV I have found is a two page article on Hutton from the Toronto Star:

References

DaffodilOcean (talk) 20:46, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Great find! Keep looking for SIGCOV, after a half hour I couldn't find anything. But keep looking! TiggerJay (talk) 21:25, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

* Courtesy pinging all editors from prior AfD who have been edited in the last 12 months per WP:APPNOTE : @MCB: @Yom: TiggerJay (talk) 21:29, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Hutton's role as a political strategist in Canadian politics has spanned multiple administrations in Ontario. In addition to the source I cited above from the Toronto Star, the other two best sources are here: [6] and [7]. All three of these articles are WP:SIGCOV. In addition she has received additional minor mentions in multiple publications that are reliable and independent, further contributing to WP:BASIC DaffodilOcean (talk) 16:11, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(edit to correct signature - not sure how I added the nowiki brackets) DaffodilOcean (talk) 16:11, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Fails WP:42. JFHJr (㊟) 03:53, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Sources provided above by DaffodilOcean appear to satisfy WP:BASIC]. - The literary leader of the age ✉ 16:05, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: to discuss added sourcing
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 15:54, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the sources listed above and in the article are extensive - just looking at the first thing I google, I don't know why we are here; BEFORE failure. I've never heard of the other Deborah Hutton's - and this well-known Canadian operative has been the subject of much media attention for decades, since she was implicated last century in the Ipperwash Inquiry Nfitz (talk) 08:56, 2 February 2025 (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.