Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Angelina Rodriguez

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 no consensus. There's a general disagreement as to the actual existing amount of coverage and whether it is enough to establish notability under any of the many guidelines cited. (non-admin closure) Kraxler (talk) 15:19, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Angelina Rodriguez

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

As a BLP, it is not notable per WP:CRIME. If it were to be moved to an article about the event, it is not notable for many reasons per WP:N(E). 217IP (talk) 02:52, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Opinion withdrawnSmokeyJoe (talk) 14:07, 12 July 2015 (UTC)~~Delete per nom.~~[reply]

As a BLP, even for incarcerated persons, the standard for inclusion needs to be much higher than WP:BIO. There are many sources for this article, but on examination, they are a series of newspaper reports, fact without commentary, and therefore squarely classifiable as primary sources, and in the end I find this article is not supported by any reliable and reputable secondary sources. In this analysis of reliable and reputable secondary sources, I exclude television shows, am open to popular books, and am particularly looking for any level of academic/scholarly commentary. I find nothing, and find this finding consistent with the nominators observation that the event (Wikipedia:Notability (events) for which this is a WP:BIO1E, is not notable. A reading of Wikipedia:Notability_(events)#Criminal_acts and Wikipedia:Notability_(people)#Crime_victims_and_perpetrators clearly points to this article not being appropriate content.

If this article were appropriate, then it would be that it is OK for editors to routinely scour newspapers for content to build articles on all notorious criminals and unfortunate victims. I think Wikipedia chooses not to do this because it is thoroughly a misuse of primary sources, forbidden a core content policy WP:NOR, and for good reasons such as Wikipedia wanting to avoid editor biases and and being a forum for any form of advocacy. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:10, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:57, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:57, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:57, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The topic is notable enough to have newspaper articles, which means someone might want to look it up. As books are written we can add applicable info to the article. But for now it's fine. Where is the harm? Is see only an upside in keeping it, and no downside. The downside to deleting it is someone has to start from scratch as more material becomes available. --В²C ☎ 19:31, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Where's the harm?" is not considered a valid argument for having an article on Wikipedia. Otherwise all of the Earth's billions of people could have articles. All except one of the newspaper articles cited in the article are limited to the state where the event occurred and are therefore not notable, see WP:GEOSCOPE. Additionally, the cited articles do not pass the WP:DEPTH, WP:PERSISTENCE, or WP:DIVERSE test either. There are many other tests of notability it fails to meet. The article can be deleted and kept as a draft, if you want. Considering the subject of the article is on death row, it is unlikely there is anything she will do that is notable enough to warrant an article. 217IP (talk) 20:05, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't a random person picked out of billions. It's a person written about in multiple newspapers. Here's the relevant standard, I think: if a topic is covered in reliable sources, then it's sufficiently notable to be in WP. From a reader's point of view, WP is a very convenient place to gather the essence of what is said in reliable sources about any given topic. If there's not much, then there's not much of an article. That's okay. If there is nothing in reliable sources, then, and only then, should there be no article. --В²C ☎ 20:19, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I understand it is your desire for Wikipedia to be more inclusive of what it considers notable, but the guidelines as they exist now clearly do not allow an article with this level of notability. If you think this article passes a test for notability, please refer to the exact guideline that you think would allow it. Otherwise, you and anyone else are welcome to participate in setting guidelines and policies if you disagree with them: WP:PGLIFE. 217IP (talk) 20:40, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

For now I'll rely on improving the encyclopedia per WP:IAR, a pillar, thank you very much. Because WP with this article is certainly an improvement over WP without this article. --В²C ☎ 20:36, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There is coverage, interesting story, yes, but I think the guideline for WP:BLP1E applies. Here is the ruling:--Tomwsulcer (talk) 22:50, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Being in the news does not in itself mean that someone should be the subject of a Wikipedia article. We should generally avoid having an article on a person when each of three conditions is met: If reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event. If that person otherwise remains, and is likely to remain, a low-profile individual. Biographies in these cases can give undue weight to the event and conflict with neutral point of view. In such cases, it is usually better to merge the information and redirect the person's name to the event article. If the event is not significant or the individual's role was either not substantial or not well documented. John Hinckley, Jr., for example, has a separate article because the single event he was associated with, the Reagan assassination attempt, was significant and his role was both substantial and well documented. The significance of an event or individual is indicated by how persistent the coverage is in reliable sources.
— Wikipedia rule WP:BLP1E.(retrieved June 25 2015) (boldface by tws)

And my take is that the persistence of coverage is not that great.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 22:50, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 (Talk) 12:11, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as it appears notable and more sources may be able to be added to this article. CDRL102 (talk) 22:30, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Well detailed, even when the person's profile is very low as well as the trial. Of course, sources are left to be desired. BLP1E is used for deletion argument, but this person is going to be executed, making the article worth keeping. George Ho (talk) 04:54, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If the criteria for notability is being executed (which it isn't), it has not happened yet and this falls under WP:TOOSOON. 217IP (talk) 19:13, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - user George Ho is right. Upcoming execution is enough to justify inclusion on the already available info.--BabbaQ (talk) 11:41, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not news, and just because newspaper articles have covered a crime does not make it notable. I have to second the analysis of the articles given above.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:51, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Just because newspaper articles have covered a crime doesnt make it notable? that is just a really weird statement. ofcourse coverage makes it notable, especially when it is as well an upcoming execution which will generate even more coverage. This is an obvious Keep.--BabbaQ (talk) 10:57, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Being an encyclopedia, a tertiary source, Wikipedia needs to be built upon secondary sources covering the subject in depth. There is no depth to this story, and a long train of factual reports, aka primary sources, don't substitute for secondary source coverage. If you think what you write, you need to read WP:PSTS, and the precise words of the WP:GNG. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:49, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
While I advocate deletion per WP:BLP1E, I would simply point out that the sources currently in the article are WP:SECONDARY in my view, such as the Los Angeles Times and such.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 14:53, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Newspapers are not simply and automatically secondary. A secondary source refers to primary sources and adds commentary, analysis or some intellectual transformation of the information. None of the sources for this subject do that. They just report the basic facts. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:20, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Are you done? LA Times has made articles on this case. Sources establishes notability in this case. We can micro-analyse anything to make it look in a certain way, but sources and overall notability does not lie.--BabbaQ (talk) 10:07, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
OK Babba. I was going to point you to Wikipedia:Identifying and using primary and secondary sources and explain to you that unless the newspaper article communicates author opinion, minimally some authors adjectives applied to the case, the perpetrator or the crime, then the source is a primary source and does not count towards notability. I started going through the references again, word by word, to be sure, but actually, I take it back, the references, including the first ("It was a sensational crime, the stuff of pulp fiction"), do include obvious author commentary. My apologies. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 14:06, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 18:00, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

delete does not meet WP:PERP. in addition being on death row does not guarantee notability. LibStar (talk) 18:16, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. She is not a notable PERP, nor is Wikipedia a newspaper. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:15, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the fact she's had a few articles in LA Times as well as the fact she's getting executed, Sources establish notability. –Davey2010^Talk 01:23, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep a number of reliable sources have published a series of articles on her. Stuartyeates (talk) 09:25, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - simply because not only with news coverage, but she was covered by crime TV shows which is additional coverage in itself and is noteworthy and notable. I know this could be better but if we question this one, we'll have to question several other related articles. SwisterTwister talk 17:27, 14 July 2015 (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.