Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Constance Barnes


 * 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. Michig (talk) 06:23, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Constance Barnes

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

WP:BLP of a person notable only as a member of a municipal committee in a single city, which is not a claim of notability that satisfies WP:NPOL. While there is some reliable sourcing here, there's also primary/IMDb sourcing — and if you examine it carefully, exactly none of it is actually supporting any substantive content about her career itself. Rather, every last reference in the entire article is supporting a couple of criminal charges pertaining to her driving record, or details about her personal life, that have no bearing on her notability or lack thereof. As a consequence, her notability as a politician is not properly established. Further, because the bulk of the sourcing is sitting on a drunk driving charge, she also has to be weighed against both WP:PERP and WP:BLP1E — and she doesn't really get past those rules either. Finally, if I go back to the original creation of this article in 2009, according to his edit summary the creator seems to have acted specifically because of the drunk driving incident (and the editor has been chided more than once in the past for having a major WP:NPOV problem when it comes to Vancouver municipal politics, to boot.) All of which, in a nutshell, means this has to be deleted. Bearcat (talk) 22:45, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment WP:NPOL is irrelevant here, since she is not famous as a politician and the section "Politics" is completely unsourced. --180.172.239.231 (talk) 02:37, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, no, NPOL isn't "irrelevant" per se — since the article does claim that she holds a political office, it does have to be measured against that yardstick. You're correct that she doesn't pass the NPOL test, due to the lack of sourcing and the inherent non-notability of the office itself, but the NPOL test does count toward whether she qualifies for an article or not and thus isn't "irrelevant". Bearcat (talk) 18:22, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. 02:37, 26 July 2014 (UTC) --180.172.239.231 (talk) 02:37, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. 02:37, 26 July 2014 (UTC) --180.172.239.231 (talk) 02:37, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. 02:37, 26 July 2014 (UTC) --180.172.239.231 (talk) 02:37, 26 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete Does not pass GNG. She is not notable as an actress, her roles were extremely minor, she is not notable as a politician, no reason to have this article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:39, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:48, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:49, 26 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete - besides the horrendous BLP violations, this person is just not notable. Her acting resume is light.  We have deleted or merged the articles of municipal board members who were arguably much more famous; see,e.g., Articles for deletion/Daniel Hernandez Jr. Bearian (talk) 16:59, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
 * 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.