Talk:Donna Upson

from Vfd

On 17 Feb 2005, this article was nominated for deletion. The result was keep. See Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Donna Upson for a record of the discussion.

Second AfD with Merge conclusion

I ran into an edit conflict with the closer of the AfD as a Merge. I had written this:

Comment Many of the delete votes here seem to assume that Upson is notable only for the 2003 mayoral candidacy. That's not the case. She was the subject of major media coverage in 2000 and 2001. There was also at one time available much more source from 2003 that doesn't show up in Google now, because the Ottawa Citizen doesn't have public archives that far back (or that I could find, and the Wayback machine doesn't go back to 2003 for them), and apparently there was CBC stuff on her too, see [this blog from 2003], which provides 5 links to what would have been RS which are now dead. Cornflakes-are-great is certainly an SPA, registered to vote here (immediately upon registration), but we should take this for what it is: a report, unlikely to be utterly false, that there has been significant television coverage, which seems reasonable, given the print coverage. The previous AfD was heavily Keep. Perhaps this reflected the better sources available then? Those sources could be tracked down if someone wanted to go to a library in Ottawa, for the Ottawa Citizen articles. She is not notable merely as a "politician," if it were the candidacy alone it wouldn't be a blip on our radar, so WP:POLITICIAN as mentioned above doesn't apply. But from that guideline: Just being an elected local official, or an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability, although such people can still be notable if they meet the primary notability criterion of significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. We have a subject who has received major media attention, we have reliable sources for the information in the article (and more, if someone digs to back up what is in that blog). I don't see anything in the guideline about recent coverage, which is an issue raised by some who have commented. So what, exactly, is the problem with this article?--Abd (talk) 16:55, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

I'll object to a Merge, however, and if someone insists, I'll go to DRV. Here is the reason: there is RS for information about this woman that has too little to do with the election to be included there. A Merge would result, then, in loss of reliably sourced information. Many of the Delete votes clearly made assumptions that the woman was notable only for her Ottawa candidacy, and then misapplied WP:POLITICIAN. Likewise many votes assumed that recent coverage would be more important than older coverage. In my original comment, I noted that I thought a Merge would be acceptable. At that point I was laboring under the same incorrect idea, that she was notable only for the mayoral candidacy. Instead, that candidacy was merely the last straw, so to speak, that greatly expanded her coverage. (I don't actually know that, a lot of sources have disappeared, there may have been more extensive earlier coverage). But she had major media coverage before that, as I noted in my comment, and as is still accessible. If this AfD had resulted in Delete, I'd be going immediately to WP:DRV, but since Merge is an advisory decision, I'm just waiting.--Abd (talk) 16:55, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

If you're going to be difficult, I'm more than happy to send this to another afd. GreenJoe 17:29, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm not going to be "difficult," I'm going to follow procedures. I'd not personally mind if you'd send it to another AfD, I'd predict it would result in a clear Keep, because the clearest arguments would be given first, though I have no personal attachment. The Merge decision was incorrect, it's that simple. It seems you think it should have been Delete. I'd argue it should have been Keep or No Consensus would have been more accurate. Either one of us could take it to DRV, at this time another AfD would be wildly inappropriate, I'd argue for speedy close. After some lapse, yes, that would be okay. The article as it stands is reliably sourced, I don't see a single problem with it. There is additional material, probably, based on what I found, in newspapers that don't have on-line archives; they've been quoted on at least one blog, but we can't use them except as an indication for where to look, and I'd say that, pending such a search, we can assume that they exist. Delete is sometimes appropriate when it is reasonable to assume that additional material cannot be found. The reverse is true here.

Let me give a procedural hint: If GreenJoe does the Merge, I'd revert it. Once, no more. Someone else could do it again if they think it proper. I would, instead, if anything like edit warring emerges, take it to DRV, for a reversal of the Merge conclusion, I expect. No Consensus would have been the proper conclusion given the comments, and my own last comment, with a summary of the arguments and some new facts, missed the closure by a few minutes. Reopening the AfD would be another possible path that could be taken. I aim for efficiency, for minimum wikifuss, which is why I'm not going to DRV first. I'll only go there if it is necessary. I'd urge GreenJoe to consider the arguments I gave above, and decide if he wants to pursue this. --Abd (talk) 18:20, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Revert by User:Killerofcruft

KC reverted my undoing of the Merge without, apparently, taking notice of the discussion here, with the summary: Why are you going against the consensus established at AFD?. Merge is an editorial action, and the AfD certainly establishes a legitimacy to the Merge, absent objection. But there is objection, and, in particular, no discussion in the Election article, which is going to suffer from a dump of material that violates WP:UNDUE. The AfD did not consider the details, and there was no consensus for Merge. Look at it! I was hoping that discussion here would avoid the need to go to DRV, but unless KC reverts himself or some other editor intervenes, I'll be going to WP:DRV with, I believe, a high chance of getting the result changed to No Consensus (accurate as to the AfD) or Keep, based on clear guidelines. I thought we might avoid the fuss. When all the evidence is examined, this isn't a marginal case, and it satisfies WP:POLITICIAN, if you read the quote from that above. Upson is only partially notable for being a politician. In fact, I wouldn't call her a politician at all.... She was an activist. --Abd (talk) 20:19, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Then I suggest you head off to DRV and get it overturned. --Killerofcruft (talk) 20:23, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for suggesting that I do what I already said I'd do if the Merge isn't reverted again. I'll probably wait a day or so.--Abd (talk) 20:56, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Closing admin for AfD has agreed that the article may be restored.

Instead of going for WP:DRV, I realized that I should first discuss the matter with the closing administrator. I did so, and I also did more research on Upson, see User:Abd/Donna Upson for what I found, so far. There is a lot more source than some of us realized. It's just that it isn't in places which can be found with Google. In any case, Shereth agreed that the article could be restored, improved, and then, if anyone still wants to do it, be presented for AfD again. I'm going to restore the article; if anyone disagrees with this, please discuss it here.

See [1] for my discussion with Shereth.

Meanwhile, there is no harm in having redundant content, for a time, in the Ottawa municipal election, 2003 article. We were already seeing loss of content resulting from the Merge: the "Baby Hitler" nickname, for example, was removed as not appropriate for that article, though with a comment which was incorrect: there is reliable source for this. I do agree that the Merge resulted in too much material on Upson in the Election article; there really wasn't much of an election controversy, nor even much real controversy at all: a fringe candidate ran for office, generated quite a bit of comment from media and in letters to the Ottawa Citizen, and elsewhere around the world, and got so many votes. Exactly how much about Upson belongs in that article, I'm not sure, but probably not all of it! I'm going to focus on bringing in what sourced information I found, here, consistent with BLP policy. --Abd (talk) 16:58, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

SHE IS NOT NOTABLE. GreenJoe 20:05, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

The edit summary for GreenJoe's response was "reply to moron." I had started to suspect that there was something odd going on with the AfD nomination for this article, that's been confirmed now. GreenJoe has been warned (by another user, not by me); in spite of the agreement of the closing administrator to renominate after a time, so that a better informed consensus could be formed, GreenJoe went ahead and renominated today. I predict speedy close as Keep, without prejudice against a later nomination. But I also predict that a consensus for Keep will become quite clear. Please see the new AfD and the RS that has been found on this woman. It is more than ample to show notability and to warrant an article. Is some personal animosity involved here? It wouldn't be surprising, Upson is, shall we say, "controversial," and certainly has said and done plenty to warrant animosity. Our job here, however, has nothing to do with that.

GreenJoe, if you continue on this path, you could be blocked. I'm actually a neutral editor, I never touched the article before, and I only happened to come across the AfD and noticed something off about the arguments being made. So I did the research, ultimately putting about four hours into it. Problem was, most of the sources aren't googleable, I think that threw some off. She was quite notable, and notability, once established, doesn't expire; it is based on the existence of sufficient reliable source, from any time, not on what she's been doing recently. (I found reference to her, however, as late as 2006. She's been "noticed" and "remembered.") --Abd (talk) 22:09, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

I never agreed to that, I was never invited to join this secret discussion you had, Abd. Oh, are you making threats, Abd? That's also a blockable offense. GreenJoe 00:20, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

3rd deletion nomination

I have speedily closed the recent renomination of this article as unquestionably premature. I would very strongly advise against doing this again until the editors have had some time to make the requested changes to the article. If there is no significant improvement in, say, one week I could understand throwing it into a debate but not before then (unless Abd indicates that he has finished making the requested changes to the article, and then I will relist it for discussion. Thank you. Shereth 22:39, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

• Comment: although I !voted to delete or merge in the previous AFD, I do want to stress that I agree with Shereth's actions here. If additional WP:RS can be added to make a stronger case for genuine notability than the article previously did, then I'd be more than happy to support keeping the improved article. But we do need to give people time to make those improvements, AFD #2 didn't really result in much of a consensus one way or another, and a renom within 24 hours just because the nominator didn't get the result they personally wanted is never an acceptable approach on Wikipedia. Bearcat (talk) 23:18, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

User:Abd requested I clarify my comment from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Donna Upson (3rd nomination) that I endorsed the merge decision from the 2nd AfD but would support keeping an article that met the objections of that second AfD.

I did not make a suggestion (!vote) in the 2nd AfD because I was pretty ambivalent about the article despite my assisting in sourcing it. The major objection I see in the AfD is that it is primarily a person notable for a single event and I share that concern. Yes, she was convicted of a hate crime for making threats and she ran for mayor of Ottawa, which raised her profile and Klu Klux Klan association further but is that enough for an encyclopedia article? I think few would argue that strictly the arrest and conviction falls under Wikipedia:NOT#NEWS or that her run for mayor is WP:BIO1E but does the confluence of those meet WP:BIO guidelines that ensure a V, NPOV, NOR article? I've thought some about it and I've finally come to a borderline no decision. An article that demonstrates more ability to meet those content requirements would change my position. DoubleBlue (Talk) 23:29, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

I re-opened the AfD, and if it gets speedy closed again, I'll be taking it to DRV. GreenJoe 00:22, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

That is what you should have done. (i.e. take it to WP:DRV) DoubleBlue (Talk) 00:23, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

I quit. Do whatever the frig you want. GreenJoe 01:04, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

At least I can say with a clear conscience that I don't support this woman. GreenJoe 01:06, 22 June 2008 (UTC)