Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Angela Dawson (Rollergirl)

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 delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:51, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Angela Dawson (Rollergirl)[edit]

[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)

WP:BLP of a person notable only as an unelected candidate for political office at the municipal level. As always, non-winning election candidates do not get Wikipedia articles just for standing as candidates -- the notability test for politicians is holding a notable political office, not just running for one, and candidates normally get articles only if they can demonstrate that they already had preexisting notability for other reasons that would already have gotten them an article anyway.
The primary attempt at prior notability here, however, is that she once filed a human rights complaint against the city police, which is referenced to a single source rather than the significant volume of WP:GNG-worthy media coverage it would take to make somebody encyclopedically notable on that basis, so it doesn't constitute a notability claim that would pass the ten year test for enduring significance -- and that, further, is the only reliably-sourced thing here at all, since even her unsuccessful election campaigns are sourced to blogs and YouTube videos rather than reliable source media coverage.
(Full disclosure, I've also had to strip an extremely negative claim from the article on the grounds that it was also improperly sourced -- it was referenced solely to a crime blogger's personal WordPress rather than any evidence of media coverage about it, and appeared to be here solely to sneak the subject's pre-transition deadname under the radar since you had to search for that, not "Angela", to find the entry. But even that isn't of any enduring encyclopedic significance, so it violates WP:PERP and doesn't secure the preexisting notability of an unelected political candidate either.)
So TLDR, nothing here is "inherently" notable at all, and the sourcing isn't cutting it in terms of GNG. Bearcat (talk) 21:04, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Canada. Bearcat (talk) 21:04, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. I can't find anything notable regarding this particular Angela Dawson. Also when I look up "Rollergirl", I find a German singer and artwork, and a book when I search "Roller Girl". This is a person who has been mentioned a few times in news and other websites for nothing significant. Winning an insignificant case and running for a political office, which most people can do, does not come close to warranting an article. There's nothing meeting WP:N criteria. A note on subsequent discussion since I've seen it used as an argument on AfD pages: that there is sourcing does not mean notable by default. Saucysalsa30 (talk) 22:18, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable as was never elected, and the human rights tribunal decision is neither here nor there. Person who directs traffic and tries to be a politician. The mayor of Vancouver might have been notable, the Parks board position isn't. Oaktree b (talk) 22:40, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If this article is kept, it should be moved to Angela Dawson (Roller Girl) as all sources that I can find use "Roller Girl" instead of "Rollergirl". Samsmachado (talk) 02:23, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete While I do agree that her case against Vancouver PD might be notable, I do agreed with Bearcat's assessment that it does not have WP:SIGCOV. If it is notable, it would be significantly covered. ✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 02:34, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. Doesn't satisfy WP:GNG MaskedSinger (talk) 05:54, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hang on User:Bearcat - I can see removing her dead name - but it's hardly just a "claim". And the coverage of that murder was very significant - such as most of page 3 of a 1991 Winnipeg Sun. This report ties the two together. The existing coverage in the article was pushing notability - but coverage as a violent murderer? Thoughts? On hand hand, I don't want to out someone - on the other hand, would we keep and document the murder, if they were straight? Nfitz (talk) 04:13, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No, we probably wouldn't keep and document the murder even so — under WP:PERP, one newspaper article in the local newspaper of the city where the murder happened would not be sufficient coverage to establish the permanent encyclopedic notability of the perpetrator. It isn't our role to maintain an article about every single crime that happens, even if a handful of local sourcing can be found to support it — our role is to maintain articles about a narrow selection of crimes that can be found to have broad international impact that would pass the ten year test for enduring significance, and not about any other crime. Jeffrey Dahmer yes; the still not publicly-named kid in my hometown who appears to have murder-suicided himself and his parents a few days ago, no.

And the definition of "claim" doesn't hinge on whether a statement is true or not — it hinges on whether the statement is properly sourced or not, which it wasn't. Bearcat (talk) 11:38, 5 November 2022 (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.