Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marie Curtis

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The result was nomination withdrawn as an editor in good standing has made enough changes to the article that this can now be resolved by simply revdelling the sockpuppet's contributions from the edit history instead of requiring a full WP:TNT treatment. Bearcat (talk) 15:22, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Marie Curtis[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)

Poorly sourced article about a mayor of a small town. While there is content here that suggests a potential basis to deem her more notable than usual for smalltown mayors, the referencing isn't actually supporting any of it: there are just four footnotes, comprising a primary source, a glancing acknowledgement of her existence in an article that's primarily about other people, a raw table of election results and an obituary, and not one of those sources actually supports the strongest potential notability claim (which is the tax thing, not the "there's a park named after her" thing) at all. This is not enough referencing to demonstrate that she meets an inclusion criterion that specifically hinges on "significant press coverage".
And the other, even more important, problem here is that this article, as written, is fundamentally the work of a sockpuppet of a banned user. It was created as a redirect and then converted into a short, unreferenced stub by two other editors, but then all of the actual substance and sourcing present here was added by the sockpuppet. The banning administrator reverted the article back to the unreferenced stub as part of the standard process of wiping out the sockpuppet's edit history, but then an anonymous IP (who was probably still the banned sockpuppet) unreverted it back to the sockpuppet's version three hours later, and it's gone virtually unchanged since except for routine maintenance.
Since there is a potentially valid basis for a "more notable than usual for this class of topic" claim here, I'm also willing to support draftspacing if somebody's willing to actually take on a fundamental overhaul of the content and sourcing. But content created by sockpuppets of banned users isn't allowed to stick around -- even if a topic actually does clear our notability standards, the article still has to be fundamentally rewritten so the sockpuppet isn't retaining the attribution for it anymore. Bearcat (talk) 23:05, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 23:11, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 23:11, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:21, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - there is a shortage of bios of women on Wikipedia. The individual was one of a handful of women mayors in Ontario in the 1950s and 1960s so it's worth keeping. Editors are free to improve the article but deleting it would not improve Wikipedia but hurt it. 99.230.241.165 (talk) 16:53, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

— 99.230.241.165 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

As important as it is to improve Wikipedia's coverage of women, being female is not in and of itself an instant notability freebie that exempts a woman mayor from actually having to have enough reliable source coverage to clear NPOL's criteria for the notability of mayors — and her gender does not erase the "created by a sockpuppet of a banned user" issue either. Nothing stops a trustworthy and responsible editor from recreating a new, better-referenced version in the future, but sockpuppet content has to go no matter what, and insufficiently referenced content isn't kept indefinitely either. Bearcat (talk) 00:06, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The article was created by User:Zanimum who 1) isn't a banned user, and 2) hasn't been informed of your deletion proposal. 45.72.208.121 (talk) 00:24, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

— 45.72.208.121 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

We don't care who originally started the article — we care who added the content that constitutes the current version of the article, and the person who did that was a sockpuppet of a banned user. But reverting back to Zanimum's version to erase the banned sockpuppet's contributions would make this a completely unreferenced stub with even less reason to stick around. Bearcat (talk) 00:48, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You have an obligation to inform the article creator of your proposal so that 1) they can respond, and 2) they can try to improve the article. 45.72.208.121 (talk) 00:51, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, Zanimum was not the creator of the page. It was created as a redirect by somebody else first, and then converted into an article by Zanimum after the fact. Secondly, Twinkle automatically notifies the original creator of the page as part of the process of creating an AFD discussion — and it's not my responsibility to expend any extra effort into manually notifying anybody else beyond the recipient of Twinkle's automatic notification. That's not how AFD rules work: I have no special responsibility to take any extra steps above and beyond the purely automated process that Twinkle finishes on its own. In fact, even if Twinkle occasionally misses a step because of a system bug outside of my control, I still don't even have any special responsibility to have gone out of my way to review whether it did everything it was supposed to or not. Once I hit save on Twinkle itself, I have no further responsibility to go around giving out extra notifications to anybody Twinkle didn't already notify on its own. Bearcat (talk) 01:08, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I'm the editor who created the redirect with the intention of eventually making an article, then obviously forgot about it. I do think she is notable, but I've not gotten into researching it enough to be sure. She was one of the first female mayors in Toronto and was mayor during/after Hurricane Hazel, but there might not be enough references to build anything. I am not ready to start on this one. I would be okay with working in the Draft: space. I would prefer that to a full delete at this time. Alaney2k (talk) 15:28, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- I did some work on the article today. It has a fair number of references although I have not done the entire period she was a politician. The idea that she is behind the regional park system in Toronto has not been fully referenced. Alaney2k (talk) 20:41, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, that's the kind of thing we needed. There have now been enough changes made to the article that we can resolve the issue by simply revdelling the banned user's contributions to the edit history instead of having to delete the whole thing and redo it from scratch, so I'm going to withdraw this. Bearcat (talk) 15:22, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, good referencing on an influential Toronto-area politician. Kudos to @Alaney2k: for salvaging the article......PK T(alk) 00:11, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.