Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vicki Iseman

Add links
From 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 Thanks for the headache - (smile) - a very interesting debate and at times I wish I didn't start the close however there is no consensus for delete - hence Keep. I might also add that I looked very carefully at the various points of view expressed and whilst I know that I might be setting myself up for a flurry of activity at my talk page - the reality is that a combination of the merge and keep nominators (not withstanding that this is NOT A VOTE) did give a total of (I think my count is correct) 27 keeps (inclusive of 3 single issue IP nominators and one person who expressed clear COI) & 8 Merge (inclusive of 1 who later changed his/her mind) versus 19 deletes (inclusive of 1 single issue IP nominator) and 1 absolute Redirect.--VS talk 04:54, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Vicki Iseman

[edit]
Vicki Iseman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Viki Iseman is notable only for her alleged (and denied) improper involvement with John McCain. Until that story broke we had no biography, nor is a lobbyist worthy of one. Now, one could argue that a 2 day story is news and WP:NOT news. But even if the controversy is encyclopedic, it is covered quite adequately at John McCain presidential campaign, 2008 and in addition a fork at John McCain lobbyist controversy. How many times do we need it? Iseman is not notable outside of that, so this breaches WP:BLP1E and possibly WP:COATRACK. Sure, in election years people want to cover scandals, but we don't need bios of bitplayers who are not otherwise notable. No relevant information will be lost be deleting (and possibly redirecting) this. Docg 20:58, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Late note to closing admin Starting with the nominator, numerous editors have referred to WP:BLP1E. Up until very recently (as far as I know) that link led to the WP:BLP section now linked to through WP:ONEEVENT. My early edits here used the former link, which I've used many times in the past in AfDs, but until I learned in this discussion that the link had changed, I thought I was directing editors to WP:BLP, a policy. I assume some other editors made the same mistake and were also referring to the policy. I'm not sure how much that matters, but it might. Noroton (talk) 03:32, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Here is one way that this confusion might hurt my argument for not keeping: Delete or merge proponents use WP:BPL1E thinking they're pointing people to a policy and instead other editors go to the notability guideline, which is much less authoritative and which can be seen in context with other notability guidelines. I don't know whether or not this is the reasons I found so few arguments actually addressing the policy that most directly relates to this AfD -- WP:BLP. If this article were to be relisted, I will contact each contributor here, mention the possible WP:BLP1E confusion (and maybe it only affected a few of us) and ask them to look over the arguments again. Noroton (talk) 03:45, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have a source for adding her to that category? --72.209.11.186 (talk) 14:34, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The article provides background personal and career information on Iseman referenced from other sources that are not in the two other pages. Iseman is a public figure and now notable. Wikipedia has many "worthy" articles for lobbyists, just look at [1]. WP:BLP1E addresses the case when "relatively unimportant crime or for standing for governmental election" is discussed which is not the case here. Paula Jones and Brian McNamee similarly are "one event" articles but have risen to notability. WP:COATRACK relates to "a cover for a tangentially related bias subject." The controversy receives only a mention in the Iseman article. There is no bias nor cover. ∴ Therefore | talk 21:16, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Please name the single event. I assert the subject has been a political operator over many years, and while she lobbies many people, her association with this one legislator over time has brought her to this visibility. BusterD (talk) 21:33, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The single event is the accusation in the New York Times of inappropriate closeness between her and Senator McCain. Without this factor she would not be notable as a lobbyist. Sam Blacketer (talk) 21:51, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The reporting in the NYT covered actions she took many years ago, and referred to potential conflicts of interest which occurred in 2000. That something was only announced lately doesn't negate that subject's own actions over many years caused the eventual report. If what the NYT has reported is true, this was going to get out eventually. BusterD (talk) 22:12, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment There has been even more extensive discussion about this at Talk:Vicki Iseman#Merge this with John McCain presidential campaign, 2008 which currently has not reached consensus. ∴ Therefore | talk 21:20, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as one of the page watchers/builders. If it's contended that these are the subject's fifteen minutes of fame, then I would assert that the minutes are not yet up, and therefore we can't know anything about the subject's long-term notability. We do know that subject is a registered lobbyist with both US House and Senate. We know that as a registered lobbyist, she must file a public report twice yearly disclosing every meeting, travel, meal and each's purpose; each such transaction becomes part of the public record. So I would assert subject is a public figure by law, at least when she's on the clock. This isn't like a barber's license; the system is designed to guarantee public transparency of each and every lobbying transaction by federal law. From the first minutes of this article's history, great care has been taken by virtually all page editors to properly cite each assertion and keep a neutral point of view (with varying perspectives on success). Now that the controversy propelling her into public view has been absorbed in its own article, the pagespace subject of this process is a relatively innocuous bare-bones stub-class biography, and has bare mention of the controversy. If this process chooses to delete or redirect, I suspect we'll either see each other again in deletion review or dispute resolution before long. BusterD (talk) 21:26, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Based partially on this assessment by former WH counsel John Dean (thanks to attorney User:TJRC at BLP/N), I'm conceding Iseman is not by statue a public figure. I still maintain my assertion of de facto significance. BusterD (talk) 14:01, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
15 minutes of fame cannot be decided in the first 15 minutes. When that's passed, if she's still famous, we can reconsider. For now, we record the controversy elsewhere, and leave the rest for the verdict of time. The rule of BLP is "if in doubt don't", not keep "just in case".--Docg 21:48, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Would that it were true (8th nomination). BusterD (talk) 21:51, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS--Docg 21:53, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
But this wasn't my argument. I was merely bemoaning that consensus often resolves "if in doubt" inconsistently. In this case we have a public figure who aroused media attention in consequence of the performance of her job. Seems pretty notable, given correct citation from non-tabloid sources). BusterD (talk) 22:05, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Where in WP:BLP does it say "if in doubt, don't". I see this:

When writing about a person notable only for one or two events, including every detail can lead to problems, even when the material is well-sourced. In the best case, it can lead to an unencyclopedic article. In the worst case, it can be a serious violation of our policies on neutrality. When in doubt, biographies should be pared back to a version that is completely sourced, neutral, and on-topic.

This article is properly sourced and entirely neutral -- exactly where is the harm? ∴ Therefore | talk 21:56, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Could you help me understand how the article is "a cover for a tangentially related bias subject", the definition of WP:COATRACK.? Thanks. ∴ Therefore | talk 23:04, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The article is a coatrack because it is a bio of a person who never would have had a bio article except for her entanglement with a Presidential candidate. Someone trots out an old story from 2000 only when McCain is a frontrunner. Despite my call for a merge, I note that we have articles on other women such as those alleged to have geen involved with or assaulted by Bill Clinton, including Dolly Kyle Browning , Sally Perdue , Gennifer Flowers , Juanita Broaddrick , Kathleen Willey , Paula Jones , and Monica Lewinsky , those alleged to have been involved with other Democrats including Donna Rice and Fanne Foxe. From the UK we have Christine Keeler . These women are only notable for their actual or suspected relationships with prominent politicians. If there is enough coverage in newspapers and broadcast media over a long enough period, or if the whiff of scandal proves the undoing of the politician, then apparently WP:BLP1E doesn't apply. If it always applies absolutely to politicians' honeys who get in the limelight, then nominate the Browning, Perdue, Flowers, Broadderick, Willey, Jones, Lewinsky, Foxe and Rice articles for AFD. We should not apply WP:BLP1E or WP:COATRACK in a way which appears to favor any one political party. Edison (talk) 23:21, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I agree with Therefore. If the list of girls that Bill Clinton was alleged to have been involved with all have pages and Brian McNamee has a page, then she needs a page. Just like them, she is notable for only one reason. Unlike them, she is a general purpose public figure. A reader who gains interest in the event is likely to gain interest in the person involved in the event. That page has biographical information unavailable elsewhere on Wikipedia which would not be appropriate on another page. Failureofafriend (talk) 23:58, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We do not keep pages to balance US political parties. In any case, time has kept many of the Clinton era figures in the public eye and interest, that cannot (yet) be said here. If anyone still cares who she is in a year, then write a bio. We don't do bios on bitplayers on today's news - not even to even political scores.--Docg 00:04, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Per Therefore. Also, it solves no problem to delete or merge this article. The sheer amount of news interest about her makes the topic of her life sufficiently notable to have an article in an online encyclopedia. Traditional/paper? No. Online? Yes. They are different standards. By the way, Doc, the argument based on the comparison to Bill Clinton's girls is not about balancing US political parties or evening political scores. It is about precedence having been set for this type of thing. --Unflappable (talk) 00:30, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Week delete. It is too early to know whether this one event will be the springboard for lasting notability as it was, say, for Donna Rice. The scandal is barely breaking at this point. Therefore, at the moment we should take a look to see if she has independent notability. Based on the sources, and my own poking around on google, I think she falls under the standard. There are multiple independent mentions in reliable sources, but they are very minor sources and the coverage is more incidental than substantial. She's just not notable on her own. Not yet. Give it a few months and ask again. We shouldn't be in a hurry here. In the meanwhile a little of the information here might be mergeable into the article on the scandal. Incidentally, notability and being a public figure are not interchangeable, nor is it entirely clear she is a public figure per the legal definition. Wikidemo (talk) 01:12, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Per Therefore and Unflappable. Also: there is a tremendous amount of interest about her right now and people will be consulting Wikipedia wanting to know about her biography. Even if this current scandal passes, she will continue to be subject to increased scrutiny in her lobbying activity because of the notoriety she gained because of her link with McCain. I think that if it is reasonably certain that members of the general public will be consulting Wikipedia in the months and years to come wanting information about her, then she is notable enough to warrant an entry. Adam_sk (talk) 04:40, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm also totally unclear as to why anyone would think she doesn't satisfy Wikipedia:Notability guidelines. "A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." Which of these criteria has this article possibly failed to meet?? The only criteria that I can see someone arguing about is if there has been "significant coverage", but certainly coverage in pretty much every newspaper and on every news broadcast in the country has to qualify as "significant coverage", doesn't it? If not, there's a LOT of material on Wikipedia that wouldn't meet this incredibly high standard. Adam_sk (talk) 04:59, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The "significant coverage" relates to the controversy, so the controversy is notable, and we have an article on that controversy. Show me any significant biographical coverage unrelated to the controversy?--Docg 16:00, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, so, the controversy is notable, but the woman who is at the very center of the controversy is not notable? What a ridiculous, Jesuitical distinction. If the controversy is notable, she's notable. There are approximately a million people who are notable solely because they're involved in a controversy, but the fact that they were involved in a notable controversy is evidence that they are notable, not evidence that they are not notable.
Doc's standards strike me as ridiculous. It'd be like saying: George W Bush is notable only because he's the President of the United States, and it's the United States that is really notable, so we should merge his biography into the United States page.
Adam_sk (talk) 06:53, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As it is in practice almost inevitable that he will be the Republican candidate, this becomes of historical importance regardless of further developments in the matter. always the case with major polticians. DGG (talk) 04:48, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Leaving aside the "almost inevitable" bit, since when were you are to define what "becomes of historical importance" immediately? Can I borrow your crystal ball? --Docg 08:27, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, we don't know that there will be an Olympics in 2008. Could be that China collapses, Beijing becomes a war zone, and all the athletes are killed. At some point we have rely on probabilities. Where the line lies isn't entirely clear, but IMHO this is pretty safely past the gray area. — xDanielx T/C\R 07:23, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Even though I support McCain, this woman does have notable importance.--Dr.orfannkyl (talk) 16:11, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Aside from the controversy? Please explain.--Docg 16:15, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What I meant to say was that it is because of the controversy that she is notable. Sort of like Monica Lewinsky.--Dr.orfannkyl (talk) 13:19, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete With no actual evidence of any wrongdoing on her part, the allegations against her are innuendo at best. The result is an article which will simply repeat these allegations, and by repeating give the appearance that they are true. This is not to mention that she is notable for only this one topic, and even then is ancillary to the greater issue regarding McCain. Most support to keep, it should be noted, is related to the actual incident and not the person. Arzel (talk) 16:19, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The sources are reliable. If you read Vicki Iseman, you will see that the controversy is only given a passing mention. The article provides background information unrelated to the controversy. I don't see how the sources are saying her role is ancillary -- they state that she bragged about her connection with McCain which McCain advisers felt was wrong. ∴ Therefore | talk 17:31, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Again I ask, are there sources relating to the individual apart from the recent controversy? Why do we need this in addition to the article we have dealing with the controversy. (Oh and the same is true of some keep voters - so let's stick to the issues).--Docg 16:44, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]


  • Keep. Subject has been covered extensively in major media, and claims that the story would fade quickly have been shown false, as the New York Times has doubled down on its coverage of her association, political and otherwise, with Mr. McCain. Notability is clear, and countless users will be looking to Wikipedia to provide an article, information, and background on this newly-notable person. If the story fades very suddenly and quickly, we may want to take another look at deleting this article, but this appears very unlikely to happen at this point. It is virtually certain that this individual will continue to meet notability guidelines throughout the campaign - really, does anyone think this will die down in the general election? - and that people will be looking to Wikipedia for information on her specifically, not just the scandal. She needs a page specifically devoted to her, because she is important enough and people will want the information on her career and background. Lee Harvey Oswald is notable solely due to the Kennedy assassination, but his article should not be merged into the assassination article. Sure, she's not as important as him, but she will almost certainly continue to be a major figure for some time. Mr. IP (talk) 19:11, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Let me add something I brought up in the merge discussion: People will be looking to the encyclopedia for specific biographical, past, and career information on this woman who has suddenly been catapulted to prominence. Everything from her birthdate to her lobbying history will be sought out specifically, and that is the sort of individual information that is best covered in a biographical article. People will want specific information about her - because she is now notable and likely will continue to be - of the exact sort that is inappropriate to include in a non-biographical article. That information will be unavailable if a merge or deletion takes place. Mr. IP (talk) 19:18, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Question Can you explain how her background is of any relevance to the 2008 US Presidential election? I understand how the controversy surrounding the alleged relationship is relevant, but not her background. Jons63 (talk) 13:54, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Answer Her list of clients may prove to be very relevant. The Washington Post has inteviewed the retired head of Paxson Communications, and he suggests that Iseman was present at a meeting between he and McCain that McCain denied would have taken place.[2] Her clients are her career; being a biography, additional facts about her, properly cited, simply complete the article. –Yamara ✉ 19:54, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You said "background is plainly of great relevance to the 2008 U.S. Presidential election", I still don't understand how the information that is currently in the article can be of any relevance to the 2008 U.S. Presidential election. to summarize the article as it stands right now, she was born, NYTimes reported she had a relationship with McCain, she graduated high school, college and delivered a commencement address, she got a job, promoted and made partner, she had clients who she lobbied for (mostly TV and communications, oh and her high scool and college). Did I miss anything? What about her is notable and of any relevance to the 2008 US Presidential election, other than the part in the lead that isn't even discussed in her article (there is a See Also)? Jons63 (talk) 01:09, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You could say the same for - and I admit this is an extreme example - Lee Harvey Oswald. You can't just merge him into the assassination article. Without that article, he probably doesn't get his own article, but at the same time he's a notable figure, so it's important to include some biographical information of the sort that would be inappropriate and out of place in the event article. This is a woman who has recently become notable. Mr. IP (talk) 18:48, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. She has almost no notoriety and to create an entire article for her based on the wikipedia userbase's reaction towards one NYT story is a bit absurd. A Wikipedia article needs to be about people, topics, ideas, and things that will still have relevance and durability over time. This person is NOT relevant over time; at best, the event will survive. This article should be deleted. Its ideas can be placed in another article or, probably better, placed in the John McCain 2008 Presidential campaign article. --Mystalic (talk) 17:09, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

One of the reasons that things endure over time is that records of them are created and maintained, rather than deleted and destroyed. This woman has become notable, and it's important to have some biographical information about her - information that would be out of place in the McCain article. Mr. IP (talk) 18:48, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. There is a dearth of background information on Iseman, particularly after her employers have pulled her bio. She's a news figure at the moment, and lobbying is one of the most important issues in US politics today. Casual users should be able to easily find a spot for information about her education and professional background. --McChris (talk) 17:33, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep When I heard about Vicki Iseman from various verifiable, notable media sources, I came to Wikipedia to find out everything encyclopedic about her. I think that I'm not the only one who, when they hear about somebody in the news, immediately type 'wp $person' into their web browser location bar. eigenlambda (talk) 20:23, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Jons63, Hepcat, Therefore, you can find this on WP:AFD: Unregistered or new users are welcome to contribute to the discussion, but their recommendations may be discounted, especially if they seem to be made in bad faith (for example, if they misrepresent their reasons). Conversely, the opinions of logged in users whose accounts predate the article's AfD nomination are given more weight. Identifying very new registered users (not IPs) who may have registered just to participate in this discussion would be useful. I hope this explanation helps. Noroton (talk) 02:13, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There seems to be a good deal of news and secondary source coverage and on this person. Some here argue that since she wasn't notable before the NY Times article, then she shouldn't be notable now. Since when does someone need multiple bases of notability? I think her notability rests on the fact that she has changed the tactics of a presidential nominee. --Hepcat748 (talk) 22:51, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete (see changed vote just below) Folks, we actually have a Wikipedia policy section meant to address this exact situation: WP:BLP1E. There is absolutely no reason to suppose that (a) this person has any other claim to notability whatever; and there is every reason to remember that (b) the "scandal" is currently revolving more around the New York Times editorial decisions. The information has a role in articles about the election, about McCain and about the New York Times. That doesn't make an article on this person's life something notable. Some other situations/articles have been brought up. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a valid argument, and in some other cases the controversy was ongoing, with implications for Bill Clinton's impeachment. If this story is resurrected or if the subject is found to be notable for some other episode in her life, then we can revisit. But by the time this discussion is closed the subject likely will have receded back further into obscurity. Or keep the article and just revel in unreliable dirt. Noroton (talk) 23:20, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS doesn't bar the use of comparisons.

    While these comparisons are not a conclusive test, they may form part of a cogent argument; an entire comment should not be dismissed because it includes a comparative statement like this.

    Don't dismiss those who argue that similar articles would not be deleted for similar reasons that this one (arguable) shouldn't. WP:BLP1E doesn't preclude this article. It precludes relatively unimportant incidents. The sources used for this article are independent of the event article, a requirement of BLP1E. Iseman is notable as defined by Wikipedia:Notability (people):

    A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject.

    ∴ Therefore | talk 23:50, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Change to Keep & Merge to John McCain lobbyist controversy. Avb's comment at 00:20, 25 Feb, along with DGG's and Therefore's, and some more reflection all have persuaded me. This meets another objection of mine: It's revolting for us to enshrine an allegation of an affair with the name of the accused woman, even though the NY Times article didn't even actually allege an affair, just indicated it. Can we please try to be less unfair to people; whether or not the New York Times is going to be unfair to them? There are implications to the event that are important to the campaign and the Times that should be covered, so let's keep the relevant information in the encyclopedia. But let's not put her name in the article title. Have a little humanity, people. Noroton (talk) 03:54, 25 February 2008 (UTC) (rewrote "Keep/Merge" to "Keep & Merge" just to make very clear what I'm saying. Noroton (talk) 03:51, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge/Redirect into John McCain lobbyist controversy. We have Crystal Gail Mangum as a precedent here; the incident in which she was involved was unquestionably notable, but there was little coverage of her beyond that single incident. (Note the redirect to the appropriate incident.) She is nowhere near as notable as Monica Lewinsky, who almost brought down an American presidency, or Donna Rice, in which incontrovertible documentary evidence scuppered the ambitions of a plausible candidate for that same office. BLP1E is not negotiable, and this is essentially a single issue, from eight years ago to boot. Horologium (talk) 23:36, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • BLP1E is a guideline and doesn't preclude discussion. It states:

    When a person is associated with only one event, such as for a particular relatively unimportant crime or for standing for governmental election, consideration needs to be given to the need to create a standalone article on the person. If reliable sources only cover the person in the context of a particular event, then a separate biography may be unwarranted.

    This isn't a relatively unimportant event. Although it *may* in fact not be warranted, BLP1E certainly doesn't proscribe it necessarily. ∴ Therefore | talk 23:55, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
WP:ONEEVENT states:
Marginal biographies on people with no independent notability can give undue weight to the events in the context of the individual, create redundancy and additional maintenance overhead, and cause problems for our neutral point of view policy. In such cases, a redirect or merge are usually the better options. Cover the event, not the person.
Avb 00:20, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment I havn't had time for a complete dig but so far the only mention I can find outside current events is a blink and you will miss it mention in congressional records see here.Geni 01:08, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
oh a mention of some lobying from 2001.Geni 01:39, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Even policy, even BLP policy, is interpreted flexible in accordance with the situation: note the word "usually"; it is not there by accident.. The community here has the right to decide what is the appropriate resolution. DGG (talk) 03:39, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Well, she's notable now. Over 90,000 google hits. She's now part of history. It will be a footnote in history, but footnotes need to point somewhere. Wikipedia seems to be a fine home for those seeking an objective bio. -- Quartermaster (talk) 04:44, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The article is a biography, and not a "coatrack". The main focus of the article is Iseman's achievements as a lobbyist, and those are independent of the McCain story (which, for the record, I think is a complete load of speculation which the NYT ought to be ashamed of). Information about the Iseman-McCain story goes in the story about the incident, but if a reader wants to know about Iseman's role in Washington, they should come to the biography. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:36, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- Nominator and other participants have argued, "this material can be covered adequately in the John McCain article." No offense, but this argument overlooks one of the very important strengths of the wikipedia -- the properly maintained watchlist. Readers may be interested in having John McCain on their watchlist, and be un-interested in the details of Ms Iseman's life. Similarly other readers may be interested in Ms Iseman, or the scandal, and uninterested John McCain. IMO having two articles is a courtesy to readers. IMO merging two related but distinct articles is generally a disservice. Geo Swan (talk) 15:52, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Which of the examples in WP:COATRACK, a guideline, most closely resembles this article? WP:COATRACK by fiat needs more. This article's subsance is about Iseman's personal and professional career from sources independent of the event article with a mention of the controversy. I think I can see the rack for the coats. Thanks. ∴ Therefore | talk 17:02, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Will (talk) 19:27, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep as meeting WP:BIO. It is generally a very bad idea to delete things based on BLP penumbra concerns when we have no complaints from the subject. The notability concerned is much higher than that which BLP1E would normally trigger. Claims of COATRACK are also unpersuasive as explained by Sjakkalle above. I would not however be strongly opposed to a merger to John McCain lobbyist controversy. JoshuaZ (talk) 20:21, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment can any of the pro-Keep editors say with a straight face that they have any interest in this subject at all beyond its connection with McCain? ... Anyone? ... No, I didn't think so. That's when you merge. Let your conscience be your guide. Noroton (talk) 23:17, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reply As I asked someone earlier on this page, why are you WP:AGF anything about other editor's actions? You should assume that what they are saying is their actual intentions until proven otherwise. Jons63 (talk) 23:33, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • No, I'm assuming lack of thought and an underlying bias that editors themselves don't see or are avoiding seeing. I think editors who don't consider the lack of humanity involved in naming the article after this woman or editors who dismiss humane considerations should consult their conscience. Because what we'd be doing is really that bad, and I don't mind saying so. Noroton (talk) 00:18, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Can anyone say a straight face that they have any interest in John Hinkley at all beyond its connection with Reagan? Should we get rid of that article? JoshuaZ (talk) 23:45, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Bogus comparison. Hinckley has been a name well known for 25 years (not 5 days). He's famous for shooting someone (not allegedly maybe supposedly having sex, according to rumours). He was tried and convicted (not condemned maybe by one journalist). Utterly nonsensical comparison, to a woman who's getting 15min in a newspaper - and that's it. Now maybe this woman will turn out to have enduring fame, maybe not, a safe comparison would be to Alexandra Polie - whom I suspect you'll have to google to remember? --Docg 23:50, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • If this woman does what John Hinkley did, I will support an article under her name. I promise. I would first like the New York Times to positively report that what she did, in fact, did happen. I don't think that's too much to ask. I think changing the course of history might well make a person so notable that we should have an article. JoshuaZ, are you saying that because we have the Hinkley article or John Oswald or Sirhan Sirhan we should eliminate WP:BP1E (or whatever we're calling it now)? Noroton (talk) 00:18, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Oh, I agree that Hinckley is much more notable than Iseman. The point was limited to the the observation that being mainly notable for interaction with someone else does not by itself really mean that much. BLP1E has limits and we need to discuss where those limits are; simply crying "BLP1E" is not sufficient; and by the actual wording of BLP1E it is hard to see how it applies in this case especially given that the canonical examples of BLP1E are unimportant criminals and people who are the subjects of involuntary internet memes. Incidentally, I have no idea who "Alexandra Polie" is but since it turns up exactly one google hit. Is there a typo there? JoshuaZ (talk) 01:01, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with a controversy page or Delete. - She isn't notable enough for her own article especially one that centres on the controversy. Jasynnash2 (talk) 10:38, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Like it or not, this story has made her notable, and a large amount of the detail in this page about her could not fit and would be lost in the controversy page. It's also well sourced and cited. Xmoogle (talk) 12:21, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I used noticed from above "Until this issue came about, she was a unknown to the majority of the United States" This reason will do nicely for removing essentially 1000% of the content from WP. DGG (talk) 14:42, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And that would be bad why? --nyc171 (talk) 15:06, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I suspect DGG means that for every notable topic, the topic was not notable until some one issue came about; it's always one issue that moves a topic across the line to being notable. Now, with time, other issues may add to that, but what made any topic notable the first time it became notable is some one particular issue. So, if you go back in time to the one issue that made a topic notable, and discount it, then the topic would no longer be notable. And that would apply to essentially all of the content in WP. --Unflappable (talk) 21:47, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What are the other incident(s) or material or facts that makes this person notable besides the single incident? --nyc171 (talk) 00:11, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Explain to me why we need to have this information in John McCain, John McCain presidential campaign, 2008, John McCain lobbyist controversy and Vicki Iseman (yes, it is addressed in all four articles). Iseman is not herself notable; the alleged relationship with McCain is the notable part, and changing this to a redirect to the lobbyist controversy article would be the appropriate way to handle it (as was done with Crystal Gail Mangum, as I noted above). Most of the deletes here are frustrated at the massive POV-forking at work here, rather than the information in the article itself. BLP concerns should be the first concern here; there are no direct allegations against her and absolutely no evidence that she did anything improper. The "one event" is the alleged improper relationship, which does not need to be pinned to a single date to be a single event. Horologium (talk) 04:34, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Make that five separate articles, as it's also in Criticism of The New York Times. Can you say "overkill"? Horologium (talk) 04:45, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Make that Six seperate articles, it is also in Alcalde and Fay. Jons63 (talk) 13:06, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Content gets put in multiple articles all the time; it is a general result of the wiki process. You are of course welcome to edit it out of some or minimize with to minor mentions. But this isn't an argument for deletion of this article. JoshuaZ (talk) 18:02, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I've read the article and followed the sources and this article appears to be pathetic when it comes to notability. Let's review the sourcing: The entire WP article depends on the notability conferred by the New York Times article, which can't actually say she actually had an affair because they don't actually know. What we know is that there were suspicions from McCain's staff and they spoke to McCain and this woman about it. Oh, and they definitely report that she and the senator knew each other. Exactly how this confers notability mystifies me. Given what the public editor of the New York Times has said about the article, it mystifies him, too.
What else have we got? A few paragraphs from her college alumni magazine? We should all be so notable. In fact, many of us are. I look down the references and see the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette follow up on the Times article because she lived in that area. That article would never have been written without the prior NYT coverage. Same thing for the online report from the local TV station. Then we've got a reference to the OpenSecrets website, which relies on public documents. The really humorous citation is the coverage of the Homer-Center School Board where she gave a presentation as a volunteer to support her old high school. "BOARD EXPEDITES SUPPORT FOR BASEBALL FIELD" The face that launched a thousand expeditings. She's so notable that she got mentioned in the 49th paragraph. Or was it the 50th. It's kind of hard to count that many paragraphs down. What else is there? I get it: The one event she is famous for occurred on February 21, 2008. That was the day the New York Times published innuendo about her. It took the Times months of digging to come up with innuendo. Well, let's start some appropriate categories for this kind of subject: Category:Women acquainted with John McCain, Category:Lobbyists who have appeared before the Homer-Center School Board, Category:Victims of New York Times innuendo, Category:People made victims on February 21, 2008, and let's not forget Category:Victims of Wikipedia. People who get hit by trucks have more notability.
Perhaps a supporter of this article could actually supply the reason why we should avoid the clear recommendations of WP:BLP1E. Perhaps a supporter of the article can explain why its so important for us to keep this article rather than have it merged into the other one, as proposed. Are we going to miss having the information that she lobbied for a high-school gymnasium? That she started out as a receptionist? That she was a cheerleader? Why have notability criteria at all if we're going to stretch the guideline like taffy?Noroton (talk) 05:32, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Here's what the New York Times editor, Bill Keller, told the Times ombudsman: "If the point of the story was to allege that McCain had an affair with a lobbyist, we’d have owed readers more compelling evidence than the conviction of senior staff members,” he replied. “But that was not the point of the story. The point of the story was that he behaved in such a way that his close aides felt the relationship constituted reckless behavior and feared it would ruin his career." So the possible affair was not even the point of the NY Times story. Wikipedia is basing its article on the fact that McCain aides were suspicious. The woman herself may have been doing just exactly what lobbyists are paid to do: ingratiate themselves. I ask again: What makes the subject of this Wikipedia article notable? The New York Times in this instance was not a reliable source. As its own ombudsman "public editor" wrote: [W]hat the aides believed might not have been the real truth. And if you cannot provide readers with some independent evidence, I think it is wrong to report the suppositions or concerns of anonymous aides about whether the boss is getting into the wrong bed. [3]
When Wikipedia notability policy catches up to Wikipedia practice we'll have a section at WP:BIO on "Suspicions by staff". Noroton (talk) 06:09, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Very well said, Noroton. If this doesn't explain the point of WP:BLP1E WP:ONEEVENT and its application here, I don't know what will. Avb 12:52, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
While I've admitted to being one of those who has some vestment in this pagespece and in this process, I take issue with two things Noroton has said above. In my view, after a thorough reading of the NYT's webinterview, I believe Keller maintained the point of the article was to demonstrate the inconsistency between McCain's words on the subject of lobbying and his actions involving several lobbyists, one of whom was Iseman. IMHO, the spin machine has been broadcasting night and day about how this is a potential sex scandal for McCain. The pagespace subject of this process does not reflect that point of view, and has never reflected that point of view by my page watching (except for the normal ip rudeness) since the first minutes of inception (and the first four hours or so were a very cool, responsible process undertaken by people who were trying to get the story straight; click through the diffs). As of this timestamp, the article currently up for deletion has exactly one reference to John McCain lobbyist controversy (an article created by cutting and pasting from this pagespace in order to maintain balance here), and none to John McCain. The second issue with which I disagree with Noroton is about what lobbyists are paid to do. While they often do ingratiate themselves as a tool of their intention, my general impression is that in the United States, federal lobbyists are paid to influence national legislative opinion on issues of enormous public significance. Lobbyist often are seen to work against the public interest, in favor of their client, IMHO. This adds significance, in my view. BusterD (talk) 14:29, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Whether lobbyists act for or against the "public interest" isn't that relevant (this is aside from the point that lobbyists always represent a subset of the public). There are many other lobbyists of her level of success and no one is arguing for their inclusion. So that sort of argument seems less than persuasive. JoshuaZ (talk) 18:02, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • BusterD, if the point of even the NYT article is McCain's conduct and not the conduct of this woman, then it suggests that she's exactly the kind of bit player in a single event that WP:BLP1E and WP:ONEEVENT were designed to cover. It also suggests that Wikipedia coverage should be focused on McCain, not the woman, and the proper place for that is in the article we should merge this article into. You mention the process of creating this article, but the process is irrelevant because we're here to judge not the editors but the article, which is a failure. It's a failure on this level: You don't broadcast gossip, and you don't use the figleaf of legitimate public interest in the character and actions of a presidential candidate to damage the reputation of a private person without having solid evidence. It's very understandable for editors to be lulled into thinking that they're doing something legitimate because the New York Times put the information on its front page. The authority of the NYT is high. But it's not absolute, and the controversy swirling around the article, including criticism from the Times' own ombudsman, indicates that in this case the Times was not a reliable source. Look at Wikipedia:Biographies of Living Persons#Sources: Material about living persons available solely in questionable sources or sources of dubious value should not be used The New York Times is a source of dubious value in this case, as shown by the enormous negative reaction from many, many quarters about this story, including from the Times' own ombudsman. The Times piece might be useful for establishing that some, mostly anonymous, staffers were concerned about the appearances and no more. What an incredibly weak reed to support the notability of a biographical subject of a Wikipedia article! You mention the public interest in shining light on lobbying. I sympathize. Ask yourself if innuendos of adultery (and, in essence, a kind of prostitution) against a private person are a fair and responsible way of doing that. Noroton (talk) 18:05, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

convenience break

[edit]
  • Comment User:Therefore states repeatedly above that WP:BLP1E / WP:ONEEVENT are not absolutes that we can invoke without thinking about them. Good point. We'd be wikilawyering if we just take the language to look for loopholes. Instead, Wikipedia policy tells us we need to look at both the spirit and the language of any policy and guideline and use our common sense. The spirit of WP:BLP is crystal clear and there are numerous statements in it that apply directly to this case:
  1. Nutshell graph up top: Wikipedia articles can affect real people's lives. This gives us an ethical and legal responsibility.
  2. 1st paragraph: Such material requires a high degree of sensitivity Certainly, some has been shown, but not enough.
  3. 2nd paragraph: Be very firm about the use of high quality references (Again, the NYT is not a high quality reference in this case.) See also the "Sources" section for more on that.
  4. 3rd paragraph: Biographies of living persons (BLPs) must be written conservatively, with regard for the subject's privacy. [...] An important rule of thumb when writing biographical material about living persons is "do no harm" At this point, the article is actually written that way, but when it's written in conformance to WP:BLP, it shows a failure to demonstrate notability, and simply stating that the woman has received news coverage doesn't fill that void, as WP:BLP explicitly states (see #7, below). So notability can't be justified without violating WP:BLP. We must have higher standards for these articles than for typical articles. I do not believe editors in this discussion have shown they recognize that.
  5. The section in "Sources" on "weasel phrases" is exactly analagous to Times editor Bill Keller's weasel justification for the article: Wikipedia: Ask yourself whether the source is reliable; whether the material is being presented as true; and whether, even if true, it is relevant to an encyclopedia article about the subject. When less-than-reliable publications print material they suspect is untrue, they often include weasel phrases. Look out for these. If the original publication doesn't believe its own story, why should we? Keller's weaselly justification: "If the point of the story was to allege that McCain had an affair with a lobbyist, we’d have owed readers more compelling evidence than the conviction of senior staff members,” citation Wikipedia has its own obligations.
  6. Editors too lazy to read the the "Presumption of privacy" section should at least let their eyes scan the subsection titles: Basic human dignity, Well known public figures, People who are relatively unknown, Articles about people notable only for one event
  7. From the "Articles about people known only for one event" subsection: The bare fact that someone has been in the news does not in itself imply that they should be the subject of an encyclopedia entry. Where a person is mentioned by name in a Wikipedia article about a larger subject, but remains of essentially low profile themselves, we should generally avoid having an article on them. How does this not apply?
  8. From the "Writing style: section:

Real people are involved, and they can be hurt by your words. We are not tabloid journalism, we are an encyclopedia.

–Jimmy Wales [1]
If editors here can't explain away the clear policy implications of WP:BLP in this case, which are direct and strong, then the closing admin of this AfD is required to do so under WP:DGFA regardless of how many "Keep" !votes there are. If the closing admin doesn't, then Deletion Review is obligated to overturn, and if DR doesn't, then WP:ANI or the Wikipedia Arbitration Committee are required to uphold policy. If ArbCom doesn't do it then Jimbo Wales may be asked to explain why what he has said in the abstract doesn't apply to this specific case because the disjunction is so jarring and prominent. In fact, the only way to address this for those who want to Keep is to explain how WP:BLP does not apply in this case. I have heard barely any argument on that so far (mostly from BusterD and Therefore) and nothing at all convincing. If new information comes out, that might change the situation enough to justify a Keep. I'm only addressing the article and the situation as it stands; if the news coverage brings out more information, that could make her notable, but if we're dependent on that, it indicates it was premature to create the article this soon.Noroton (talk) 18:05, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Noroton, extreme remarks aside, people can legitimately disagree about whether or not something is a BLP issue when it isn't a case of strict libelous content. I suggest you read User:JoshuaZ/Thoughts on BLP. That's why for example we've kept multiple articles about people who want their articles deleted. The situation isn't as clear cut as you make it out to be, and I and others have given explanations as to why this individual is notable. It is in general not a good idea at all to delete articles based on BLP-penumbra concerns when a) the individual's name and face have been in (the notion that a Wikipedia article might somehow adversely impact her at this point is simply absurd) b) the individual has not expressed any desire to Wikipedia to have this article deleted. Between a) and b) there's no good reason to invoke a penumbra BLP concern at all. Your suggestions that the closing admin "must" do something based on BLP1E which is in general a statement of general attitude towards "relatively unimportant criminals" and involuntary internet memes is unproductive and frankly hard to understand. JoshuaZ (talk) 18:14, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's hard to understand because in the nine minutes from 18:05 when I posted my long comments and 18:14 when you replied, you missed a lot, perhaps by reading too quickly. Your description of my position is cartoonish, probably for that reason. I pointed out that editors were ignoring or obviously misreading policy (obviously WP:BLP is the most relevant one), and I invited alternative interpretations of policy, which I think strongly supports my view. Everyone at every level takes a risk of being overturned if they don't justify what they're doing as a good interpretation (not necessarily my interpretation) of policy. I read your essay twice and I suggest you reread my two essay-length comments.
You're not addressing WP:BLP well enough, either: (a) We have no reason to believe at this point that the news coverage generated will be ongoing except in journalism magazines examining the news judgment and ethics at the Times; you're much too impressed by "reputable national and international news sources" which have largely been commenting on the work of the Times (usually condemning it) -- that's buzz, not reporting. WP:BLP points out that we're an encyclopedia, not a tabloid, newspaper, or Wikinews. (b) WP:BLP applies whether or not the subject complains to us. The whole point of having a BLP policy, as WP:BLP explicitly states, is to prevent the preventable complaints and to do the right thing whether or not complaints come in. I'm so tired of saying "as WP:BLP explicitly states", but at almost every turn here it's got something to say.
I wish you would respond to my points, one of which is that this is a poorly sourced (because unreliably sourced) BLP article. Serious concerns have been raised all over the place about the Times coverage. This subject spans your essay's distinction between simple and penumbra (ethics-related) BLP issues. In your essay, you take a much more nuanced view of some of the problems here than you have in this discussion. The caveat you mention, However, a neutral description of an invasion of privacy or grotesquely negative information can still be hurtful and add to the general problem, is a useful point. Remembering that a Wikipedia article will likely be high up on search engine results for casual readers who type in her name five years from now is also worth considering. Noroton (talk) 21:36, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I responded to your points that I thought deserved substantial responses. I'll try to expand on my earlier remarks. If there is any point you feel I have not sufficiently covered please let me know. It may simply be because it is a point I agree with. For example I agree with most of your comment at 18:05 . I also agree that there should be serious concern about trying to justify that this isn't BLP1E by using some of the prior minor coverage that any moderately successful individual would generate. Such material is fine for filling out an article once we've agreed there should be one; it is not at all a good idea to use it to justify an article.
Now to the meat: I agree that the Times should be not be treated a reliable source in this case; that's ok because we've got a tremendous amount of other coverage determining what was and was not ok with the Times coverage. So as long as we are careful not to accept the Times coverage by itself we are in the penumbra rather than strict BLP circumstance. I think the level of penumbra concern here is not reasonable given the circumstances. For example, you quote Jimbo as saying "Real people are involved, and they can be hurt by your words"- this is true, but in this case any possible damage that was done was done by the New York Times. If anything at this point a Wikipedia article written neutrally sticking to the facts will if it has any impact heal rather than hurt. Similarly, while a I do say "a neutral description of an invasion of privacy or grotesquely negative information can still be hurtful and add to the general problem" the circumstance where that would be most relevant would be minor internet memes like the Star wars kid. The overarching thought process there is that although the person in question had their name show up in reliable sources, they were clearly unhappy about it and moreover many sources did not mention the name at all. So it isn't unreasonable for us to be concerned that the kids future dates or employers might try to google him and that at that point the first hit is Wikipedia connecting the kid to that viral video. However, we're not going to be in any circumstance like that; any serious invasion has already occurred; any future employer or love interest will have a rough idea of who Iseman is and what she became known for; we can't do anything about that; we can't go and delete other websites. The most we can do is present a fair neutral account of her work, her life, and how she became a household name. That's an account that when actually written in an NPOV perspective makes her look a lot better than the more tawdry press coverage. JoshuaZ (talk) 00:19, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My preference would be to keep the article under her name as a redirect to the article on the incident, limiting the information on her to information about the incident. This would keep all information relevant to the public interest in Wikipedia but leave out an extensive biography. My concern in this case and similar cases is not about employers or others that she knows well, it's about people she doesn't know well -- casual friends and acquaintances, neighbors, or even potential clients (edited to add: potential clients in any business or career she gets into after this. Her effectiveness as a Washington lobbyist is likely very crippled at this point). Some of these people very likely would not tell her that they've googled her but they may make decisions about her that isn't in her best interest and do so because of the fact that we have a Web page devoted to her rather than a mention or even a few paragraphs in a section of another article. It's not the love interest but the guy who won't ask for a date. You may consider the difference minor, but I think it's major: A Wikipedia webpage lends authority to the idea that this person is important and important for a rumored affair. I'm concerned that people, especially people unfamiliar with Wikipedia, would look on the Web page as lending more authority to the rumors and some paragraphs in the article would not do that. Unfortunately for her, there is an overriding public interest in having the essential information in Wikipedia, and I think common sense and WP:BLP allow it. Also, a full article on her cries out to be added to, so more and more information about this private person gets thrown on the page, which is, frankly, a separate outrage in itself.
As a policy WP:BLP charges us with being humane. Your comment above addresses that point in a small way and is just about the only comment on the Keep side that does so. Since being humane is the main motivating factor on the Delete and even merge side, responding to that concern with more emphasis here and in other discussions would be an extremely good idea for you and people with your position. I also don't want Wikipedia's reputation hurt if it is proven later that she's done nothing wrong. It happens. Richard Jewell and Ray Donovan went through that experience. I'm not much concerned about legal liability (although the New York Times perhaps should be). She may well ask to have the article removed from Wikipedia, and if she did already, we'd have heard about it, but it's early. No one could fault us for having an article about the incident, but if this turns into a Jewell- or Donovan-type situation, it would be an easy line in future media coverage to add "... and she even became the subject of a 'Vicki Iseman' Wikipedia article." That's much less likely to be said if the article is redirected at this point.
Keep in mind that the placement of the New York Times article at the top of the front page has been one of the points of the criticism directed at the Times (Howard Kurtz' column in the Washington Post mentions it, for example). It's not just that the information is out there, but the prominence of the placement of the information matters a great deal in these situations. Anyone involved in newspapers or magazines will agree with this and there are analogies in the broadcast media. The way we treat the information creates a framework that affects the way our readers treat it. That's why there's a big difference between having a separate article with her name on it as opposed to having the information about the incident in another story. Noroton (talk) 04:34, 28 February 2008 (UTC) Added a clause in italics, as noted Noroton (talk) 04:40, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I forgot to add: A Wikipedia article will likely be high up in search engine rankings for her name. I assume it would be less if she was only included in an article about the incident. I don't mean now, but years from now when the Wikipedia article remains. Her name will naturally fade on the Internet, but much less so with a Wikipedia article. I think there are practical consequences for her if we keep the article. Noroton (talk) 04:45, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete BLP1E still applies here, but over time if more reporting is done on her we can readily and immediately recreate this article. It doesn't matter what brought her into the spotlight--if she's heavily reported on later and becomes more than a footnote here, we're fine. It's just far too limited in scope now. Lawrence § t/e 18:23, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment and today we have yet more coverage- [4] [5] [6] [7] [8]. This list does not include letters to the editors and a fair number of op-eds from individual who are not themselves notable. This isn't going away any time soon and a lot of the coverage is focusing on Iseman herself. JoshuaZ (talk) 19:06, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

JoshuaZ cites several new sources; none of these relate to Iseman, except in the context of her alleged relationship with McCain. Wikipedia's notability guidelines state:

None of the new citations you list meet that (they're not about Iseman, they're about McCain and Iseman), and the handful of articles about Iseman are utterly trivial (she spoke in favor of a motion at a school-board hearing; she has clients in her career as a lobbyist). The article on her fails to assert notability at all; she sounds like the thousands of lobbyists in Washingon, few of whom have an article dedicated to them. As Wikipedia Policy states: Only two of the cited sources discuss her outside of the context of her connection to McCain, both in trivial fashion, which indicates that the connection to McCain is the only notable thing. Horologium (talk) 00:06, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This comment ignores WP:ONEEVENT policy: The bare fact that someone has been in the news does not in itself imply that they should be the subject of an encyclopedia entry. Where a person is mentioned by name in a Wikipedia article about a larger subject, but remains of essentially low profile themselves, we should generally avoid having an article on them. Noroton (talk) 01:30, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
On the contrary, I feel your comment ignores WP:BIO and a host of other relevant policies, as this article hardly focuses on one event. RFerreira (talk) 18:58, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please elaborate. Note that WP:BLP is a policy; WP:BIO is a guideline. I'm not afraid to change my mind 180 degrees if you can show me how a host of relevant policies is more important here and undercut the policy I've cited and the points I've made. Noroton (talk) 20:34, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete BLP and bs nonsense. Simply an article trying to attack McCain. Mønobi 04:24, 1 March 2008 (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.
  1. ^ . "WikiEN-l Zero information is preferred to misleading or false information", May 19, 2006
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Vicki_Iseman&oldid=1085523915"