Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jill Morgenthaler

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 Keep, consensus is that there is enough coverage in reliable sources to meet notability guidelines. Davewild (talk) 21:52, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Jill Morgenthaler

Jill Morgenthaler (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Unelected local politician. While mentioned in coverage of the election, I don't believe she passes Wikipedia:Notability_(people)#Additional_criteria for Politicians. However, she might be notable for being an Army spokesperson for the Abu Ghraib fiasco.

See also: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Steve Jagla Toddst1 17:02, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

  • Keep. Article is well-referenced. (I am the author of the article.) Media references to her role in the Abu Ghraib scandal can be easily added. — goethean ॐ 17:10, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
I will keep that in mind.HAL is not IBM (talk) 22:06, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Passes WP:N per her media coverage. Epbr123 17:10, 4 December 2007 (UTC)*Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletions. Toddst1 17:17, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Conditional Keep Keep only if the Steve Jagla is kept as well. This article is tied to the Steve Jagla article. To remove the Steve Jagla with out removing the Jill Morgenthaler article would be inherently unfair, bias and doing a disservice to the readers of wikipeida. They both must be either, removed of retained, as a collective whole. This is only common sense. The credibility of wikpeida is at stake with this issue of fairnessHAL is not IBM (talk) 21:46, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Redirect to the article about the Illinois 6th Congressional District. I appreciate that the author has sourced this, and applaud her/his volunteering the information of authorship. As with Steve Jagla, however, I question whether this is encyclopedic. Even if Morgenthaler wins the primary, until she's in Congress, is this much more than a campaign advertisement that's being hosted by Wikipedia? Bear in mind that if it's kept, there's nothing to stop this from going from advertisement to smear, depending on who's doing the editing. Mandsford (talk) 02:56, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. The article is well sourced and it passes WP:N. I think it would be incorrect to redirect to the 6th CD page. An individual can be notable whether or not they win the election (see Tammy Duckworth). Morgenthaler's role as a state official would suffice even if she weren't a candidate. Propol (talk) 12:22, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Really? "Morgenthaler was Colonel in the United States Army, serving for nearly 30 years. She has served in Korea, Berlin, Bosnia, and Iraq; and she handled disaster recovery during the San Francisco earthquake of 1989. In 2004, she handled press duties for the Army, including addressing the Abu Ghraib scandal. [3][4] [5] She was appointed by the Illinois Democratic Governor, Rod Blagojevich, to serve as a homeland security adviser in Illinois." Which part of this is notable enough to merit an encylopedia article? Is every homeland security adviser entitled to a separate piece? Mandsford (talk) 12:49, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
  • 'Delete' nothing notable, certainly not unles she wins he primary. Evenby the most expansive definition, merely being a political candidate is not notability.DGG (talk) 08:46, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Wikipedia's general notability guideline states that

    A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject.

    The extensive media coverage of Jill Morgenthaler in multiple reliable sources cited in Jill_Morgenthaler#References clearly establishes a presumption of the notability of this person pursuant to the criteria established in the general notability guideline. The purely subjective assertions of non-notability advanced by editors supporting deletion of this article fail to outweigh the presumption of notability established via the general notability guideline through objective evidence. John254 20:50, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. Elected or not, this person meets WP:BIO and exceeds our standards for verifiability. RFerreira (talk) 00:00, 10 December 2007 (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.