Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Donnarama

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. J04n(talk page) 19:19, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Donnarama[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable local drag queen from Toronto. Xtra! and fab mentioned in article are both local/Toronto magazines. Burnberrytree (talk) 04:26, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:29, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:29, Toronto}})

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Comment: We need to consider if a topic notable to the largest city in Canada and the provincial capital of Ontario is notable enough for en.Wikipedia. If not, then what other Canadian-only notables are being primed for deletion? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 00:33, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a gay man who lives in Toronto, and I think you're overgeneralizing. Plenty of "Canadian-only" notables qualify for and keep articles on Wikipedia — if they have properly written and well-referenced articles that actually make credible notability claims. Everybody on Toronto City Council has an independent article, for starters. Even some seriously quirky "nobody outside of Toronto has ever even heard of this" stuff qualifies, like David Zancai. But those articles are written in properly encyclopedic style and properly referenced — this one is just a mess. Bearcat (talk) 00:33, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:41, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Even as a local Toronto queerboy who's quite familiar with Donnarama, I'm just not seeing any genuinely strong evidence of non-local notability in this article as written. And that's not a comment on her as a person, but just on the fact that the article in its current form is a badly written piece of crap that just demonstrates her existence, and fails to provide any real evidence of notability. Xtra! and fab are both perfectly acceptable sources if they're being used in properly written articles that are making credible claims of notability, but this article is just a really badly written résumé with a couple of unsourced WP:BLP violations in its edit history. And while it listed a bunch of random links in the references or external links section with no explanation or context of why they were there, I actually had to remove most of them as either dead or inappropriate, leaving the article with just one properly footnoted reference and two potentially salvageable ones — and none of those three links properly supports a genuine claim of notability (as opposed to mere existence) either. (And, of course, just because I'm personally familiar with the topic does not, in and of itself, mean she necessarily belongs in an international encyclopedia anyway — she might, in fact, but that's determined by the quality and depth of sourcing that can be provided, and not by my personal familiarity.) Delete — though if somebody wants to start from scratch on a better version that makes her notability more readily apparent, that new version should be considered on its own merits rather than being automatically speedied as a G4. Bearcat (talk) 00:30, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete, some fleeting local notability by the looks of it within the Toronto gay community, but not enough third party sources to really hammer that home. As in the above comment, this is not a comment on the person themselves, just an assessment of the coverage. If more coverage comes into existance or is found, then I'm happy to revisit this comment. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 13:13, 25 March 2013 (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.