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 merge to Ottawa municipal election, 2003. While there was no clear and obvious consensus to redirect, the fact that there was a rough split between keep and delete tells me there is some weight to the argument that she is somewhat notable but perhaps not enough for an article - thus merging seems to make the most sense. Shereth 16:14, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Donna Upson[edit]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: ((subst:spa|username)); suspected canvassed users: ((subst:canvassed|username)); accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: ((subst:csm|username)) or ((subst:csp|username)).

Donna Upson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Fails WP:BIO. She's a failed mayoral candidate. Not at all notable. First nom. Delete GreenJoe 03:40, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I agree, I don't see how there's substantial coverage in enough depth, detail, or quantity to establish notability. If she hasn't done anything notable, and she hasn't recieved significant coverage by multiple independent sources, then I don't see evidence of notability. Calgary (talk) 04:08, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Failed candidates at the civic level are not notable. Resolute 04:29, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom and Resolute. Fails primary notability, news coverage is not in-depth, nor is it widespread, certainly not enough to mitigate failure at WP:POLITICIAN. Franamax (talk) 06:23, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Donna is certainly not a likeable person, and her percentage of the vote was about enough to suggest that the only people who voted for her were blind or accidentally filled in the wrong box. Still, despite being a fringe candidate, she was obviously a controversial figure during the Ottawa city elections in 2003, and she was written up in "higher-level" sources like the CBC. I think the article deserves to stay. Halifax Nomad (talk) 07:49, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. -- DoubleBlue (Talk) 06:42, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- DoubleBlue (Talk) 06:45, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I disagree that she isn't notable. WP:POLITICIAN says that any candidate can be notable, so long as he/she meets the WP:N criteria. This person certainly does, as notability is asserted and is backed up with reliable, third party sources. Happyme22 (talk) 08:22, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails WP:N. She is a failed candidate at the civic level. She is not notable. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 08:30, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, a minor candidate but she received a good deal of press coverage when she ran. - SimonP (talk) 11:48, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Has received significant enough coverage in reliable sources to meet the primary notability guideline. Davewild (talk) 13:14, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Has significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources. Amalthea (talk) 14:03, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge/Redirect to Ottawa municipal election, 2003 per WP:ONEEVENT. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 16:47, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. This issue has already been settled in the past. -- Earl Andrew - talk 18:12, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

One AFD does not permanently settle inclusion for all time; any article can be renominated at any time if there are legitimate reasons to revisit the issue. Bearcat (talk) 18:04, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

While that is true, notability doesn't expire. If an article was on a notable subject at one time, reliably sourced, etc., it's improper to remove it based on some idea, as I see here, that the subject is a "failed candidate." She *was* notable, so she still is. On the other hand, if she wasn't notable then, and the AfD was essentially a mistake, then it's proper to repeat it. The "failed candidate" argument is, however, the reason given for deletion. I've convinced myself, now I'll make a !vote. --Abd (talk) 20:00, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the article wasn't reliably sourced — it didn't contain a single source until a week ago Wednesday, and even the sources that are in the article now don't really make all that compelling a case for viewing her as anything more than a minor footnote to a more notable topic. Bearcat (talk) 02:27, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge/Redirect to Ottawa municipal election, 2003. I think the sentence where she is mentioned in the Election article is sufficient for this person. PKT (talk) 14:58, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge/Redirect as above, this person is not notable enough for their own article. -Djsasso (talk) 17:16, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Running for office doesn't automatically make you a politician. IMO, not notable. Suttungr (talk) 19:53, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge/Redirect, like Brewcrewer and others have stated.--Boffob (talk) 01:49, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Although I voted to keep in the original AFD, three years on I now feel that I and other people confused current news with long-term notability. She was a relatively current news story at the time, but that doesn't make her permanently notable — it just makes her a failed mayoral fringe candidate whose 15 minutes of fame ended years ago. There's little need to keep this permanently; in hindsight she's nothing more than a minor local historical footnote who's notable only for one event, and thus merits one or two lines in Ottawa municipal election, 2003 at the absolute most. Merge or delete. Bearcat (talk) 18:04, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep This woman has been connected to the Klan and the National Socialist Movement in Canada, and was in national press when she ran into a church with a Black congregation and began screaming slurs. She's a psychotic "politician" who is certainly notable (albeit for all the wrong reasons). Frank Pais (talk) 03:26, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But she's not a politician. Registering as a municipal candidate in Ontario does not make one a politician, it makes one a fringe candidate. The article subject has done nothing of a political nature before or since, thus, hardly a politician. Franamax (talk) 05:09, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keeping an article just because we think that the subject is psychotic is almost certainly a wild WP:BLP violation. Bearcat (talk) 12:34, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep As per the reasons expressed by Frank Pais. I think it is very important content for this encyclopedia, especially for anyone who may begin researching (anti-)racism on wikipedia. wiki is not paper. --Mista-X (talk) 05:04, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: WP:BIO1E covers this sort of issue.--Boffob (talk) 12:13, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: There has been news coverage about her well before her candidacy: There are two distinct newsworthy incidents listed on Donna Upson before the election in 2003, one in early 2000 and one in mid 2001. If all those articles were just fallout from the "one event", the election, I might agree that WP:BIO1E covers this case, but that's not how it is. Amalthea (talk) 18:34, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Without her candidacy for mayor, the article wouldn't even be here, because the other events would never have gotten her an article on their own. So WP:BIO1E certainly does apply here, because the mayoral candidacy is the one and only reason she even has an article for AFD to discuss. Bearcat (talk) 19:24, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:WP:NOTNEWS. Those other two incidents do not have "significant lasting and historical interest and impact" either.--Boffob (talk) 19:26, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The 2000/2001 coverage is really a single incident, crime and punishment. Further, the 2001 incident is left at "allegedly assaulted" - the followup doesn't seem available (unusually for CBC). We can't leave an article with an allegation, surely that's a BLP problem - if we can't provide the resolution, we shouldn't have the allegation either. So we're left with an incident in 2000 and a municipal candidacy, which almost anyone can do, if they have the $200 [1]. I'm not seeing how this adds up to notability except by the standards of "let's have an article on every single racist we can identify". Now, I'm all for making those identifications, but how about by referenced list format? There's not enough here for a standalone article. Franamax (talk) 21:07, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as per nomination. Last place candidate from a municipal election 5 years ago is not (any longer) notable.Vulcan's Forge (talk) 01:48, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. WP:BLP doesn't say innocent until proven guilty, except for racists. We have a description of unresolved criminal charges, old enough that the case certainly ought to have been resolved by now, without a conclusion. That's just not material we ought to include at all. Absent that, the only remaining information is a trivial result as a minor party candidate in a single municipal election. Fails Wikipedia:POLITICIAN? I think so, pretty much for the same reason I oppose referring to high school shooters as gunmen: some boys hunger for manhood of any sort, no matter how destructive. Let this fade into the same obscurity as other fringe also-rans. On all other merits it's worth deleting, and an equal playing field for political obscurity discourages acting-out. Durova^Charge! 07:34, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Durova DigitalC (talk) 08:03, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment If this article didn't currently exist, would anyone desire to create it? Franamax (talk) 08:21, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Notability doesn't expire, even if the interests of most editors move on. (However, Merge and Redirect may be reasonable, for efficiency.) I doubt that anyone "acts out" to get a Wikipedia article! --Abd (talk) 20:03, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I agree that Notability doesn't expire, but I also feel that WP is not news. I think she may have been "notable" in a newsworthy sense, but not in an encyclopedic & historical sense. DigitalC (talk) 01:38, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Further comment, actually notability does expire. The pressing issue of this particular today may be the afterthought of tomorrow. That's not necessarily due to the moving interests of Wikipedia editors, more to the perspective and wisdom that only time can bring. In the particular case, we're looking at a marginal-BLP that exists only to proclaim "she's a racist! Look, we found one!". An illustration of the sad state of humanity, of course, a subject worthy of an encyclopedia, paper or infinite? Why? Deletion is the best response, not even worthy of our thoughts here. Franamax (talk) 02:07, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Because if you just ignore them,they go away, right? --Mista-X (talk) 05:37, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, they do. Ignore the concepts they present, and they become irrelevant. Pay attention or be hysterical about it - now you've brought the debate exactly where they want it to be. "Never do battle with fools. First they'll bring you down to their own level, then they'll use their superior experience to win" (from a wiser person than I) Franamax (talk) 05:47, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody's suggesting that we delete articles about notable figures in the racist movement. But what exactly does it accomplish to keep an encyclopedia article about a trivial figure whose most notable accomplishment was a single fringe mayoral candidacy which garnered only slightly more votes than John C. Turmel, and which nobody ever took all that seriously in the first place? How does it serve the interests of anti-racism to keep encyclopedia articles about non-notable and completely unimportant people just on the basis that they're racists? I haven't honestly seen a case being made that she's actually encyclopedically notable — I'm seeing "we should keep her because we kept her before" (to which the answer is that consensus can change) and "we should keep her because she's such a horrible nasty racist piece of work" (to which the answer is that while that's true, it's a blatant WP:BLP violation to keep an article on an otherwise non-notable person just because we want to publicize how slimy she is.) Bearcat (talk) 12:09, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per Durova et al. Not notable. --Killerofcruft (talk) 10:31, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely keep as an important source on a figure who seems to emerge every year in Canadian politics and cause a stir. Her involvement in founding arguably dangerous white power groups is also a cause for people to be informed about her. There has been heavy television coverage on Upson. A lesser degree of Internet sources should not invalidate how noteworthy she is. Cornflakes-are-great (talk) 14:41, 20 June 2008 (UTC) — Cornflakes-are-great (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

When on earth has she emerged in Canadian politics or caused even the most minimal stir since her mayoral candidacy in 2003? She gets zero hits on Google News, and even a regular Google search doesn't bring up a single news article about her that isn't a piece published in 2003 about her mayoral candidacy — and there aren't even very many of those at all. Almost all of the actual Google hits about her are public archives of e-mail groups, which aren't valid Wikipedia sources. There hasn't been heavy television coverage of her; that would show up on Google. She absolutely, utterly does not register on the news radar outside of the context of the 2003 municipal election in Ottawa, and even in that context she was an inconsequential blip. (Plus I'd be remiss if I didn't also make note of the fact that this !vote is Cornflakes' first-ever Wikipedia contribution apart from their own user page.) Bearcat (talk) 14:52, 20 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.