Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rachel Dolezal (2nd nomination)

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
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 snow keep‎. There is a strong consensus to keep the article. The early closure of this discussion is done in accordance with WP:SNOW. (non-admin closure) gobonobo + c 11:20, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rachel Dolezal

AfDs for this article:

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

Rachel Dolezal (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I think the page should be deleted for the same reasons we don't allow creation of a page related to Christine Weston Chandler aka Chris Chan. Personally I think both of those people are very similar in the ways they are covered, and objectively we can agree that Dolezal's notability is that of infamy. I think an encyclopedia shouldn't at least contribute to the contemporary ridicule of a person that wouldn't get news coverage if they didn't do the silly stuff they did. VectorVoyager (talk) 16:10, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Snow keep Hundreds of reliable, independent, significant coverage sources. For that exact reason, it's absurd to compare Dolezal to the person you've mentioned. It's nowhere near the same kind of repercussion. Skyshiftertalk 17:27, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the arguments already presented in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rachel Dolezal. This person is undoubtedly notable for her activism and personal quest for being recognized with a racial/ethnic identity different from the one she was born with. Darwin Ahoy! 17:29, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: lmao oh boy, that's really all I can say. Best argument for deleting is BLP1E, I guess? But she was a fundamentally public person even before that as the local head of the NAACP.
Also if Chandler ever gets covered secondarily (outside of individual antics) by like, the New York Times, or a reliable study on internet subcultures, an article will be made, AVOIDVICTIM be damned (though if that ever happened I predict everyone would be dragged into it kicking and screaming). Primary problem outside of that is there is no good secondary coverage outside of petty crimes, while the media Dolezal's case, due to the race aspect, started a whole debate over transracialism and whatnot, lots of commentary (though I guess you can probably still make the BLP1E case?)
She is notable for doing one thing I suppose. Not much else or long standing notability. PARAKANYAA (talk) 17:30, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep Many credible sources that have and are currently reporting on the subject of the article. Notoriety is a not a reason for deletion. An encyclopedia is not a place to keep only pages of the morally pure "heroes" as we decide it. -- Sleyece (talk) 18:29, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Sleyece: what about AVOIDVICTIM? The media screwed up her life. She couldn't find any jobs that she resorted to prostitution, and Wikipedia only contributed to that infamy. I think we need to avoid picking up on citizens.VectorVoyager (talk) 16:29, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
She's not a victim. She defrauded the NAACP, then started an OnlyFans account when they caught her. -- Sleyece (talk) 01:54, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This subject actively sought notoriety through deceit, and the publicity (good or bad) that came with it. The other subject mentioned did not and is actively harassed. That's all I'll say besides that the nominator needs to learn what a good comparison is, because this is certainly not that. Nate • (chatter) 21:40, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - pretty clearly does not meet the criteria of WP:BLP1E and I don't lend much credence to the comparison with Christine which seems to be the main argument of the nominator. AlexandraAVX (talk) 11:32, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This subject has clearly gotten coverage through a large number of WP:RS. Also, the OP's statement "objectively we can agree that Dolezal's notability is that of infamy" implies that this article, is, in fact, notable. Crystalholm (talk) 01:21, 20 February 2024 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Rachel_Dolezal_(2nd_nomination)&oldid=1209334688"