Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Donna Upson (3rd nomination)

< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion
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 speedy close as premature. The previous AfD closed one day ago and an editor made a reasonable request to reconsider that closure, which I allowed to give it some time for reworking prior to bringing it up for discussion again. The rapid renomination of this article before time was given to carry out that request is not helpful to the process or trying to come to some kind of conclusion here. I doubt anyone could make a good argument that a reasonable amount of time was given for the improvement of the article prior to this nomination, so I am closing it. Shereth 22:36, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Donna Upson

edit
AfDs for this article:
Donna Upson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Non-notable failed municipal candidate. Fails WP:BIO. 1st afd 2nd afd Delete GreenJoe 20:13, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep per the significant coverage in reliable sources already in the article spread over both the election and her earlier arrest. (so not WP:BLP1E). Also per the lots of additional coverage in reliable sources found by Abd here - User:Abd/Donna Upson establishing this persons notability even stronger. Davewild (talk) 20:37, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - This is the 3rd nom. Please explain a little more why you renominated it? I'm neutral on this subject and have read a few of the previous AfD discussions, which were more than extensive and well argued from both sides. Have you read the 2nd nom and the page history? Please read the bottom of this this discussion with the admin that closed the 2nd nom. Faradayplank (talk) 21:48, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep This is way too soon to renominate. Please, before !voting in this, read the prior two AfDs, and the page of sources, which is by no means complete, at User:Abd/Donna Upson. The closing admin from the second AfD noted that there was no consensus (which was correct as the !votes stood) but decided on Merge as a compromise. Unfortunately, there is plenty of material on Upson that doesn't belong in the target article, Ottawa municipal election, 2003. Yes, Upson is a "failed candidate," but most "failed candidates" don't attract national coverage in major media, over many months, extensive local discussion in a major newspaper (The Ottawa Citizen), and six published letters to the editor of that newspaper (that's not material for the article, I think, but it shows notability). And there is reliable source about earlier events in her life, again, quite a bit of it. The Merge process began with the Ottawa election article, and already reliably-sourced material was removed ("Baby Hitler") because it didn't belong there, and I'd agree. It belongs in a separate article. The closing admin agreed to allow the redirection to be removed, to allow work on the article, and if, after that was done, he would renominate.[1] This renom by the last nominator, immediately after a decision by the closing admin? No. This should be speedy closed without prejudice. Given that this is an article with ample reliable source, about more than the Ottawa mayoral candidacy, I'd can't imagine what violation of WP:BIO is involved, and the nominator does not specify what violation that might be. I'd urge also, reading my last comment for that AfD, which hit an edit conflict with the close, it is at the beginning of Talk:Donna Upson. In discussion with the closing admin, Shereth, which I engaged in in lieu of going to Deletion Review, I pointed out that there were numerous incorrect assumptions made by !voters in the second AfD, and, when those reasons for deletion were discounted, there weren't any reasons left. And that includes the reason in the present nomination, there is no substance there, and the nomination is directly contrary to WP:POLITICIAN, which specifically discusses the situation of a failed candidacy which receives wide independent attention. I'd say that this is an abuse of the AfD process and leave it at that. --Abd (talk) 21:51, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I support the previous nom's closing only a day ago to merge this article to the Ottawa municipal election article. Should User:Abd re-write the article in a way that meets the objections of the AfD, then I would endorse the keeping of that article. DoubleBlue (Talk) 21:54, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The closing admin agreed to renom after the work was done, just so that consensus could be clear, so DoubleBlue would have his opportunity to review. However, I'm a bit puzzled. The article was short, but was reliably sourced, and it covered the prior events involving this woman that preceded the mayoral candidacy, though it needed some updating. It included reliably sourced material that wasn't about the election. What "objection" was in the AfD? I reviewed all the arguments in the AfD, and none of them fit the bill. I'd say that the article was acceptable as it was; but that with the new material I've found, it goes way beyond that. However, I'd request DoubleBlue to make his concerns known in Talk:Donna Upson so they can be addressed in the proper place. Merge decisions don't actually require AfDs, you know. I've seen an AfD speedy closed just for that reason. --Abd (talk) 22:18, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The second AfD did not provide clear consensus to keep, so I don't think it's a speedy keep. However, based on the notes I see of the close and the post-close discussion, the article warrants more than the 24 hours it's gotten to get improvements. —C.Fred (talk) 22:03, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Expanding on my prior comments, the article has met the burden of demonstrating that the subject was covered in multiple reliable sources. National news articles are written about her for more than just her candidacy for mayor in Ottawa. As a result, the article does demonstrate notability and should be kept on its merits. —C.Fred (talk) 22:28, 21 June 2008 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Donna_Upson_(3rd_nomination)&oldid=1069024200"