Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Raquel Rodriguez (American Political Consultant)

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. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 09:51, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Raquel Rodriguez (American Political Consultant)

[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)

Non-notable political consultant. Reliable sources are cited in the article, but they only cover Rodriguez in the context of relatively minor (alleged) election fraud. Identified simply as "Woman" in the CBS source, an indicator of her lack of notability. The Center Square source mentions that in June 2021, 500 election fraud cases against 43 defendants were pending in Texas courts. Rodriguez's case isn't exceptional. Mooonswimmer 00:51, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The political consultant is notable given the prosecution for election fraud. Those prosecutions have been relatively rare, and it elevates the notoriety of the subject significantly. JArthur1984 (talk) 00:52, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore, you agree with me that reliable sources are cited.

Keep in mind that under the "general notability guidelines" notability here is presumed, because the individual has received "significant coverage in reliable sources" including, in addition to those already cited in the article:

https://foxsanantonio.com/i-lied-woman-at-center-of-voter-fraud-accusations-speaks-out-says-none-of-it-was-true

https://www.fox44news.com/news/state-news/san-antonio-woman-accused-of-election-fraud/

https://www.expressnews.com/news/local/article/project-veritas-election-fraud-gave-15994192.php

https://www.ksat.com/news/local/2021/01/13/texas-ag-san-antonio-woman-in-project-veritas-video-arrested-on-election-related-charges/

https://thetexan.news/san-antonio-woman-filmed-by-project-veritas-arrested-on-voter-fraud-charges/

https://www.houstonchronicle.com/politics/texas/article/TX-woman-arrested-election-fraud-project-veritas-15867537.php

https://sanangelolive.com/news/politics/2020-10-28/texas-ag-investigating-voter-fraud-scheme-texas

https://www.kxan.com/news/texas/ag-paxton-woman-accused-of-voter-fraud-in-san-antonio-arrested-charged/

One news outlet goes even farther, and thinks the fact of her defense attorney is newsworthy (it's the former district attorney in the jurisdiction) - https://www.ktsa.com/former-bexar-county-da-nico-lahood-representing-woman-charged-with-election-fraud/

I think the Texas Attorney General nicely articulates the significance of the prosecution:

"“Many continue to claim that there’s no such thing as election fraud. We’ve always known that such a claim is false and misleading, and today we have additional hard evidence. This is a victory for election integrity and a strong signal that anyone who attempts to defraud the people of Texas, deprive them of their vote, or undermine the integrity of elections will be brought to justice,” said Attorney General Paxton." JArthur1984 (talk) 01:17, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per WP:NOTNEWS, WP:CRIMINAL & not passing WP:GNG. Also WP:BLP issues with article at current time, hasn't been convicited, lack of mention that she claims she was niece of eldery women she was helping vote, which would significant reduce charges she is facing. Project Veritas has a better WP:NPOV than this with its short blurb on the incident, which is enough coverage for Wikipedia imo. WikiVirusC^(talk) 01:26, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I recognize the suggestion on her niece argument and added it here, although I disagree with the remainder. JArthur1984 (talk) 02:00, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Politics, and Texas. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:22, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTNEWS, WP:BLP1E, and WP:BLPCRIME. The fact that this story was regurgitated by several regional news sources does not make it encyclopedically remarkable or confer notability on the subject. --Kinu ^t/_c 21:30, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
How do you square your comment with the guidance that, "On Wikipedia, the general inclusion threshold is whether the subject is notable enough for at least two people to have written something substantive (more than just a mention) about that subject that has been published in a reliable source."?

I have shown far more than two sources (cited in the article and here on the deletion talk page). They were not "regurgitated" - these sources report on different stages on the reporting, from the hidden camera news organization that broke the story, to those that covered the initial reaction, to when she was charged, and even one outlet that thought the fact of Rodriguez's criminal defense attorney was significant. And I don't think the knock on regional news sources is germane. Significant things happen in Texas too, and we ought not to have regional biases. JArthur1984 (talk) 00:10, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@JArthur1984 While GNG is a broad general policy applied in most instances, in certain cases we have more specific guidelines which raise the standard of inclusion to a higher threshold. These policies apply in this case because this is a biography of a living person, and as such the policies of WP:BLP1E and WP:BLPCRIME both trump GNG and must be strictly enforced. In this case we would need to see evidence of the notability of Raquel Rodriguez other than the reporting on the crime that was committed. If you can produce significant coverage of Rodrigues in multiple independent sources (a minimum of 3 not 2) with zero mention of the crime and that spans across time (per WP:SUSTAINED), then and only then is the subject able to pass BLP1E and BLPCRIME. The exception to this would be if the crime itself becomes a high profile event with SUSTAINED coverage in a variety of types of sources (books, journal articles, etc. not just the news) and beyond just a single region (ie national or global coverage; otherwise the subject is considered “low profile” and fails BLP1E) However, that is not the case here as the sources are too chronologically close to one another to demonstrate sustained coverage, and they are part of the routine news cycle in local newspapers and other local media. (See WP:NOTNEWS) 4meter4 (talk) 07:12, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTNEWS, WP:BLP1E, and WP:BLPCRIME.4meter4 (talk) 03:35, 19 June 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.