Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Melissa Brown

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
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 of the debate was Keep.--May the Force be with you! Shreshth91($ |-| r 3 $ |-| t |-|) 09:03, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Melissa Brown

There are 435 Representatives, why record every loser, and such a non-notable one at that. Simesa 00:47, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. Political candidates are not generally notable for losing unless it is for a very prominent office. There are no other indications of notability. Keep and expand per Dialup. That information makes her notable enough for mine. Capitalistroadster 01:20, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. There's 297,700,000 people in the United States, and we only generate 435 losers every 2 years. Just getting the nomination of a major political party for one of those seats is a pretty significant event. There are far more trivial things and people chronicled in these pages. --RoySmith 01:49, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
  • A bit more:From Society for Women's Health Researach Brown is evidently one of the authors of The Savvy Woman Patient (ISBN 193310208X )—"Melissa Brown, BSN, MSN, MD, is an adjunct assistant professor of Ophthalmology at the University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine and adjunct senior fellow at the Leonard Davis Institute of Health Economics at Penn. She is the director for the Center for Value-Based Medicine and co-chief Editor of Evidence-Based Eye Care. Dr. Brown has served as President of the Montgomery County (PA) Medical Society and serves on the Advisory Council for the National Institute for Aging. She has written over 120 publications on medical issues."
  • Could any of thise be actually added onto the article? Bill shannon 02:54, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Borderline -- weak Delete. It says here that "Dr. Brown was recently appointed to serve on the Advisory Council for the National Institute for Aging by Health and Human Services Secretary Tommy Thompson." I don't know if that means much, but there it is. It looks like she's a go-getter and active public citizen, but there are lots of those. But not all of them get them come to attention of the national GOP. Here's the thing: if the editor had written a longer article, stressing her publications and involvement with the Center for Value-Based medicine, and topped it off with her political campaigns, maybe it would be a keeper. But she didn't, and is anyone really ever going to back and do that? Especially considering they would have to add this: "[A]n insurance company, the Pennsylvania Physician Healthcare Plan, [was] co-founded by Brown in 1995. The company failed four years later and was taken over by the state government. In 2000, the company was sued by the state for fraud, conspiracy and illegally conveying money to its directors. The suit was settled out of court, and the terms of the settlement were not disclosed." Yes she has published many technical articles and some books and served on boards, but does she pass the Professor Test? I think not quite. Herostratus 05:15, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep if the info Dialup found is about the same person. - Mgm|(talk) 10:12, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Undecided. If DialUp is right, and this is the same person, then that woudl probably qualify, just about, as long as the named institutions are genuine and significant (and let's not forget that every lobby group has its own tame "institute"). On the other hand, how come nobody actually bothered to put in enough information about the candidate while they were running? This is a classic example of exactly the point I made in Wikipedia talk:Centralized discussion/Legislative candidates - information on a failed candidate is hard to verify and unlikely to be miantained because it was created not by a consitutency interested in the candidate, but by a constituency interested in the election; once the election is underway this constituency has no further interest in keeping the candidate's article up to date. - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] (W) AfD? 10:31, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete: Note that a great deal of her public service is highly partisan (i.e. "not real organizations" or, more NPOV, "head of minor, probably non-functional organizations that serve to increase partisan political position without affecting actual public health"), but that is not grounds for this vote. The article only profiles her as a bit of trivia for losing in two elections to the House. 440 losers per four years is too high a number, but the real number is higher than that, as there is no indication that this woman was the nominee of one of the two parties, and we have many more losers in the primaries. If this were a biography/profile of a Republican Party operative, it might well be a keep, but the notability established by the article is solely that she lost twice. Everybody hurts some time. Geogre 11:24, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
  • She was the Republican nominee, not some minor party where you can get on the ballot by having 25 friends willing to sign a petition. FWIW, the Library of Congress thinks it's important to chronicle failed election bids [1] --RoySmith 14:49, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
    • I have no problem with that, as they are archivists. I don't believe, however, that an encyclopedia article is necessary as a biography of each failed candidate. My delete vote, though, was not actually based upon her herself but on this article, which did not include any information on her except her losing status. By itself, I don't think that triggers biography. In this particular person's case, she is being kept politically alive by some of the most harsh right wing Republican organizations. (I have heard her discussed by left wing sites and radio, as she's a bit vicious and nasty from my POV.) Thus, I do think a biography is possible, but not this article. Obviously, I would reconsider if it were rewritten. Geogre 15:51, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep per RoySmith and Peyna. --Interiot 13:26, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep per RoySmith. Hipocrite - «Talk» 15:05, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep per RoySmith. While I would not have necessarily created this page, I don't think it is worth deleting, and does no harm. Turnstep 18:19, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep per RoySmith. Major party political candidates are noteworthy in themselves, and almost by definition receive significant (if local) media coverage. Smerdis of Tlön 19:56, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Weak keep and expand if possible.--MONGO 03:27, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep per RoySmith, Expand per DialUp -Meegs 07:35, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Expand it, she's done some things worth noting, and it's not like her article hurts anyone or puts undue stress on the server. Needs expanding, though. -Andrew 10:34, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep - and again as said many times before, we need more of a policy for dealing with politicians. IMO this is easily notable enough. But it needs to be sorted out definitively to make such votes easier. Zordrac 01:53, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep once expanded, will be notable
  • Keep. At one time, the PA-13 race was one of the most hotly contested in the nation. As such, Brown deserves her article. --Alcon San Croix 00:03, 6 December 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 a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../a/r/t/Wikipedia%7EArticles_for_deletion_Melissa_Brown_4414.html"