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)

Given that I'm not an administrator, I cannot "threaten" to block. I can warn, and did, properly. I've never seen anyone blocked for that. That's correct, GreenJoe was not invited, I should have done that. I had, in fact, attempted to discuss the matter here, and he abstained from any serious consideration of the issues. It wasn't "secret," it was open, on the admin's Talk page, however. And the proper remedy for disagreement with the conclusion of that would have been to discuss the matter with Shereth, not renom and then DRV. Nothing was irrevocable. But GreenJoe, from the beginning, has made misleading arguments. Below, DoubleBlue gives a much more balanced opinion. I think it's incorrect, but we'll come to that, and I strongly suspect he will agree. GreenJoe appears to have an agenda here, it comes out in his retirement announcement: he appears to think that not deleting this article is somehow supporting Upson. However, evil does not go away because we close our eyes. And seriously revolting topics can sometimes be notable practically because of that, if it causes RS attention. --Abd (talk) 13:07, 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)

Do you seriously think anybody involved in this discussion can't say the same thing? Bearcat (talk) 01:59, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

disgusting abuse of process

As soon as the DRV finishes, I will AFD this article unless it's merged - the way that abd had tried to strongarm people is disgusting. --Killerofcruft (talk) 02:56, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

I would reconsider strongly. If the DRV closes with endorsement, and you immediately open another AfD, that can't be interpreted as anything but a bad-faith nomination, which should be speedy kept. A far better path would be to wait, let the issue calm down, and then start discussion on the talk page about whether the subject is notable. That will give some of the editors on the fence about deletion a chance to review the issue further, consider sources, look at the big picture, whatever. (Personally, I have reservations about whether the subject is notable, and I could be convinced through rational discourse that she's not, but 47 AfD nominations of "she's not notable" is not rational discourse.) —C.Fred (talk) 03:08, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Why should I wait? I feel she's not notable and would make a reasoned argument to that case in my afd - there is absolutely no reason to wait. --Killerofcruft (talk) 08:12, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

As I noted in the DRV, KoC can tilt at windmills if he likes, but at some point, it can be considered disruption. I'm not making threats, I have no power to "strongarm," the only power I have is to suggest. If I'd been "trying to strongarm" GreenJoe, I'd have warned him on his Talk page, and I'd have taken the incident to WP:AN/I. I find the intensity of response to this rather odd. It appears that what is going on is, for some, not a mere editorial decision on an obscure article on Wikipedia.

Now, that you mention it, something odd about KoC. New account, first edit June 19, after the Upson AfD was open. New accounts, if they are actually new, normally aren't even aware of AfD process.... --Abd (talk) 13:34, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm a returned user after a break. I made use of my "right to vanish" last year and then came back recently, some IP edits first and then an account. I'm generally more concerned with the fictional side of wikipedia but do keep an idea on places like AFD (which I will be getting more heavily involved in). If you have some accusation to make - make it, don't speak snidely out of the side of your mouth. --Killerofcruft (talk) 14:22, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Killerofcruft, you just confirmed my suspicion. I have no other accusation to make. But what you confirmed does raise other suspicion. For example, last time I encountered this explanation that a user was a legitimate returned account, it was a lie. The user was a banned editor. Am I accusing you of being a banned editor? No, I don't have sufficient evidence for that, just some reasonable level of suspicion based on the evidence in front of me. "Snidely," by the way, is a personal attack. Given the leaning toward incivility that I'm seeing, I'd highly recommend that Killerofcruft stay away from AfDs, editors unable to refrain from incivility tend to immolate themselves there. Now, let's return to editing Donna Upson. The loss of GreenJoe is regrettable, but he, too, seems to have had serious difficulty refraining from incivility, see a comment I just placed on his Talk page.[2]. I'm actually opposed to the AfD process: it's an editor-killer. There are better ways to satisfy the legitimate needs behind article deletion.--Abd (talk) 15:19, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

I've seen some double speak but that takes the biscuit, first of all you say you don't have an accusation to make and then you imply I'm a banned user! thus trying to poison the well! I suggest you keep your unwarranted insinuations to yourself or I'll be asking for admin action. --Killerofcruft (talk) 15:31, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

No, I did not "imply" that Killerofcruft is a banned user, though his continued uncivil response (directly imputing bad faith) tends to make the likelihood higher. It's still not at a level that I think it probable. If I did, I'd be filing an SSP report. Banned users are usually banned for incivility. As to "poisoning the well," what well? What Wikipedia process has been damaged by the "implication"? Killerofcruft barges in here with accusations of "strong-arming," when I simply followed Wikipedia procedure when I disagreed with an admin closing: I discussed it with the administrator. Who agreed to change his decision. Take a look at the subsequent process: a renomination that is snowing Keep when closed as premature, and a DRV that is likewise snowing Endorse. No doors have been closed, and the worst thing that happens is that an allegedly marginal article exists for another month, having been around for many years. My question is, "What's the rush?" Why is this so important that User:GreenJoe "retires" over it? I can speculate: an external agenda. But nothing, yet, worth taking this to AN/I over, in my opinion. Someone else may disagree! --Abd (talk) 16:21, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

I think it's time to nominate again.

I'm busy with other things, but the rescinding of the result of the second AfD (merge with 2003 Ottawa municipal election) was unwarranted. It's still clearly a case of WP:BLP1E and WP:NOT#NEWS. One arrest for a minor crime and a failed fringe mayoral candidacy don't add up to long term notability of any kind. She hasn't been in the news since 2003, she never was important even back then (only sources are local papers and CBC news briefs). Who wants to start the nominating process?--Boffob (talk) 18:47, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

I'll take care of it, per my previous discussion on this matter. Details are here. Shereth 19:55, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

First of all, not true. She's been mentioned in the news, 2007 I think it was, in Canada. This is too soon for a renomination.

As to the substance, have you looked at User:Abd/Donna Upson and the changes made to the article? This is by no means a complete compilation of RS on this (there is also some material there which is not RS, but which was useful at finding RS). This wasn't merely a local news report for a minor crime. It made national news in Canada, the first incident, and there is lots of sourced material available on Upson that is not appropriate for the Ottawa election article. And then this is not merely a "failed fringe mayoral candidacy." Those don't make wide and repeated coverage in national news. So, if you waste everyone's time filing a new nomination, I predict speedy close on the grounds that it is too soon, and if speedy close doesn't happen, it will be a Keep decision. No other conclusion seems reasonable to me, now, the matter is different from the last AfD. --Abd (talk) 20:06, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

On the other hand, Shereth, you were the closing admin previously, and you said you'd renominate, so maybe some argument should be made that you should be allowed to do that. --Abd (talk) 20:09, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

The point of the renomination is not an attempt to get it deleted per se but to subject the new version to community scrutiny. 2 weeks is sufficient time to find reliable sources. From a purely technical standpoint, the last (valid) AfD was closed as a merge and I allowed for that to be overturned and give it a second chance; the arrangement we made was to allow for discussion to proceed in this manner in lieu of deletion review, and therefore cannot be argued as "too early". Shereth 20:12, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, it seems it has turned into a debate over what constitutes notability and what is not news between myself and Abd more than a new community discussion (maybe we should contact those who voted in the second nomination to see if this "new evidence" Abd proposes convinces them to at least revote, if not change their mind about their previous vote). I still stand by the WP:BIO1E guidelines. Minor mentions of her criminal conviction 6 years after the fact, unrelated to the Ottawa election (the one Wiki noteworthy event for Donna Upson) do not add up to something that goes beyond WP:NOT#NEWS. It's not significant coverage that has long term notability. My comparison with Julie Couillard is also valid. Julie Couillard is undoubtedly more notable than Donna Upson (much wider coverage), but she's a clear cut case of WP:BIO1E: she's only notable because of the political scandal of which she was a central part. The scandal itself is a news event more than anything, so it doesn't deserve its own Wiki article, by extension, she doesn't, so she and the scandal are just part of the Maxime Bernier article. Bernier was a cabinet minister, thus notable in the Wiki sense, enough to have his own article. Donna Upson has a couple of convictions and a failed fringe candidacy. She made the news to some extent, so maybe the material in her article can be part of the 2003 Ottawa election article (a line or two). She could possibly be mentioned in other Wiki articles relating to hate crimes as well if appropriate, but there's no way she's somehow notable enough to have her own article.--Boffob (talk) 17:29, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm not hearing any objective basis for this opinion. How do we tell the difference? As I noted, the hate crime incident is cited six years later as a rare example, by a reliable source. That strongly implies notability. The very unusual character of it makes it notable. Sure, it's possible that this event could then become part of a hate crime article, particularly hate crimes in Canada, and, indeed, such an article, if it is specialized to Canada, should have, at least, a reference to her. But how to connect the two events? -- and they should be connected, I'd say. The answer is obvious: her own article. Brief mention in the Ottawa election article, brief mention in a hate crimes article (or more extensive mention if it is an article about hate crimes in Canada, and then details in her own article. I do not hear any arguments against this other than a repeated opinion, unsupported by evidence, often with incorrect presentation of the facts. The policies and guidelines I look at, very simply interpreted, would seem to support her having an article. I haven't found one that doesn't. What's the basis for this objection, specifically, in guidelines;? I'm sensing that this is simply Boffob's opinion, which is fine, he has a right to his opinion, but ... we need more objective sources than that. In another AfD that I saw end in Delete, there were several Wikipedia editors, very early registration, who happened to know the topic, and their opinion was that the topic was actually important, not merely the marginally notable thing it seemed to be from RS. And the AfD ended with Delete (even though the editors !voting were about equally divided), and this was a reasonable outcome because the opinions of editors as to notability aren't actually the standard. What I've usually seen is that if there is sufficient reliable source to justify more than a sentence, from independent sources, and not just about one incident, then an article is appropriate, provided that there is not a more notable subject where it would all fit as a merge. This, in fact, then relieves the more notable article of dealing with material that is undue weight there. This is how, in fact, Wikipedia works; otherwise the flat structure would be intolerable. We do not like to remove RS verifiable material (RS implies notability) from articles if there is no better place for it.--Abd (talk) 21:17, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Donna Upson. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080621150107/http://www.canada.com/toronto/features/municipalelections/ottmayor.html to http://www.canada.com/toronto/features/municipalelections/ottmayor.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:53, 25 December 2017 (UTC)