Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Susan Durrwatcher

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. -Splash^talk 01:49, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Susan Durrwatcher

Her 7.5 minutes of infamy are over. Zoe 22:10, September 7, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete Molotov (talk) 22:28, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Tonywalton  | Talk 23:37, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
• Comment --BlogBuilder 00:50, 8 September 2005 (UTC) I apologize as I'm relatively new here. I'm also the author of the article, though I realize that it may not warrant inclusion in wikipedia. I read through the criteria for VFD several times, and I don't see this as a particularly obvious case for deletion. Please do correct me if this is a stupid comment or if I'm violating the norms of wikipedia. Here's my rationale for why this article merits inclusion. Just because this person isn't well-known doesn't mean she isn't influential; in fact it is the decisions of the people behind the scenes who shape public discourse as much as those on the boob tube. While there's a great deal of public information about those in front of the cameras, there's a lot less information about those behind them, in part because of a bias against learning about the influential but non-famous. This is a serious information problem that I would hope we could correct. Over the next few days I'll track Google hits on this person's name. Should they increase dramatically I'll vote to keep this article.
• Delete. "Susan Durrwatcher" brings up a grand total of 2 Google hits. [1] Apparently the justification for an article about her is that she booked a guest on a talk show who allegedly made false statements on the air, and when asked about that, said that the guest's statements were a matter of opinion. But the article and its external links don't even identify the controversial guest. I would expect more people to be interested in the guest himself than in the person who booked him. --Metropolitan90 05:59, September 8, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete Ok that's persuasive. --BlogBuilder 16:07, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
• Merge with appropriate Hurricane Katrina article. There's some useful information (or at least a POV worth mentioning), but the bottom line is that Durrwatcher is just another employee doing her job that possibly did it wrong. If a programmer screws up a bug fix, is he then worth an article? -- llywrch 20:28, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. nn. -- DS1953 05:56, September 9, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete nn. Even the author seems to agree that this article was a noob misjudgement on his part.---CH (talk) 07:57, 12 September 2005 (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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.