Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Janet Rehnquist

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 keep. John254 02:56, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Janet Rehnquist

Janet Rehnquist (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View log)

Article is about a living person, makes controversial claims and is entirely unsourced. Recommend Quick Deletion as per Jimbo Wales guidelines on such matters. Lemmey (talk) 21:54, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

• Keep. Subject is obviously notable. The first item listed in a Google search for her name yielded an article in a reliable source, and there are plenty more besides. I blanked potential BLP violations and added one reference. This is a viable subject, and the article can now be built properly from the ground up. Nick Graves (talk) 22:25, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
• Question: how notable is being a former Inspector-General of HHS? We don't seem to have articles on any other such people (e.g. the HHS site says the current IG is Daniel Levinson, but the Wikipedia article is about a deceased psychologist) and as a New Zealander, I am unsure about the importance of the position. Blair - Speak to me 23:51, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
• Keep A Google News archive search [1] produces several hundred article in reliable sources with substantial coverage, easily satisfying WP:BIO. Certainly the article should be kept free of any WP:BLP violations. Edison (talk) 00:54, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
• Weak keep - The article is incomplete and would've been ripe for deletion had it not been for a vigorous defense stated here. Ecoleetage (talk) 02:40, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

• Keep. Inspectors general are not normally notable, but Rehnquist became notable because of the way she did her job. Rolling Stone wrote, "No one epitomizes the� politicization of Bush's inspectors general more than Janet Rehnquist. The chief justice's daughter, who served as a former White House counsel to Bush's father, was named IG of the Department of Health and Human Services in 2001. She quickly eviscerated her own investigative staff, lightened penalties for fraudulent Medicare contractors and doled out political favors to the Bush clan. In 2002, in direct response to a request by Jeb Bush's chief of staff in Florida, Rehnquist postponed an embarrassing audit of the state's pension system until after Jeb's re-election." None of this is in the article. --Dhartung | Talk 05:53, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

• Then put it in the article, please! As it stands, there is no notability! Ecoleetage (talk) 10:29, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

• If and when I get a chance. Putting it in the article is not a requirement for passing AFD, and I have other priorities at this moment. It is often my hope that someone else will pick up a baton. --Dhartung | Talk 08:37, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

• CommentTry reading WP:N There actually is notability demonstrated by the references identified here. The argument that there is "no notability" because the readily accessible refs Dhartung and I have identified have not been added to the article yet is invalid. The refs are there and clearly satisfy WP:N and WP:BIO, which do not require that they must have been added to the article. An imperfect and incomplete article is a candidate for editing, not for deletion. Others can add the references. This AFD will always be accessible on the talk page and will provide a source of material to improve and expand the article. WP:N says "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be notable." It does not say that the article must include those references to survive AFD. Edison (talk) 14:45, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

• I beg to differ. The references (all three of them) do not strike me as "significant." And the article itself is, as it stands today, a single sentence that identifies the lady in question simply through the title of a former job and for being the child of a famous parent. Again, please rewrite the article to meet Wikipedia standards or allow it to be brushed away. Thanks. Ecoleetage (talk) 15:04, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

• Comment I added three reliable sources and a bit of the section on the controversy. It had only a single sentence because it had been scrubbed of lengthy material about the controversy surrounding her tenure, the investigation by congress, and her resignation, which are now documented in references from the Associated Press (reported by CBS) and by a CBS story available online. Many other reliable sources have substantial coverage of the topic but are behind paywall so someone will have to visit a library to get the full text. Your dismissal of such references as the Washington Post, CBS, or the Associated Press is way out of the mainstream of Wikipedia's evaluation of sources. There is no "brushing away" of sourced articles you do not like. Edison (talk) 15:20, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

In response. For anyone who is genuinely serious about this subject, I will direct your attention to this easily accessible web site [2] and its significant details on Ms. Rehnquist’s career – details that appear nowhere in the Wikipedia article. It also seems that she running her own legal/lobbying/consulting group in Washington, which this Wikipedia article does not mention. Nor does it mention that she was previously co-chair of the Washington health care practice for Venable LLP, one of America’s most prominent law firms. Ms. Rehnquist is clearly a notable and important figure, but you wouldn’t know it by reading this site’s article. Perhaps the supporters of this article will offer serious academic research and writing that gives the subject her proper due? Ecoleetage (talk) 17:11, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Now that you agree that the subject is notable, perhaps you woul consider changing your recommendation from "delete" to "keep." As for the article's incompleteness, that is not a criterion for deletion. You are free to expand and improve the article using the reliable sources that have been found. Nick Graves (talk) 22:19, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

• No prob, Nick - vote switched. But I'll leave the rewrite to a better writer than me! Ecoleetage (talk) 01 : 15, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

• Comment Just an FYI. Particularly on AFDs but generally in Talk pages, it's considered appropriate to strike out a previous vote or statement using <s>...</s>, so as not to make replies look like non sequiturs. AFDs can also be vandalized, so making a change to your own text clearer is an aid to identifying inappropriate changes. --Dhartung | Talk 08:40, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

• Okay, Dhartung, thanks. I am relatively new to all of this and a lot of the protocol hasn't quite been absorbed. I appreciate your patience. Ecoleetage (talk) 12:45, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
• Keep as above. I'm sure that if Jimbo Wales actually reviewed this he would support the inclusion of an article about this person. Let us not invoke WP:JIMBOSAID unless he actually said it, shall we? Coccyx Bloccyx (talk) 18:46, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
• Keep. The above comments have satisfied me as to the notability of the subject. Blair - Speak to me 23:01, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
• Comment I added back some of the deleted material with refs, just to make the case for notability, but would a better writer please add general info about her career to keep the article NPOV so the controversy is not all there is. The controversy is what makes her more notable than the average office holder with a comparable job, but once notability is shown a more complete picture should be there. Edison (talk) 23:39, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
• Keep, but needs expansion. Markovich292 05:26, 25 April 2008 (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.