Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lauren B. Weiner

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 delete.--Adam ^(talk) 13:12, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Lauren B. Weiner

Not notable. This is a twenty-something former Democratic staffer. She looked up a credit report on a Senate candidate without authorization. She pled guilty to this misdemeanor, and did 150 hours of community service. Do we really need an encyclopedia article on her? I think not. This is already covered in Michael Steele (the candidate), and at best ought to be a redirect there. Derex 04:05, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

• I have created a new article where I think it is more apporpriate DSCC credit report incident. I don't think it belongs in the Steele article as it will swamp it with too much details but a separate Weiner page takes away from the notable issue (which isn't Lauren but the whole DSCC event. Thanks to Derek for getting me to think about this. I am changing my vote to Delete. I ahve already merged the details. --Tbeatty 17:48, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
  • You've merged too many details. Wiener is nonnotable, and the datum about where she got her degree isn't worth mentioning in the article about this minor incident. I think Monicasdude has a good point, though, about this incident being kept alive for partisan reasons. (That Steele was a victim of this and of the Oreo incident seems to be the bulk of the rationale for making him a Senator.) Therefore, after this bio is deleted, I'd support a redirect to the article about the incident. JamesMLane t c 22:17, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
• Weak keep, notable current event, appeared on Washington Post [1] --TBC^{??? ??? ???} 04:11, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per TBC. Royboycrashfan 04:12, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Yeah, so it's already mentioned on the candidate's article. Does we need a whole article on a picayune event, disguised as an article about some kid? Derex 04:14, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, Moved info to DSCC credit report incident --Tbeatty 04:13, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
  • note: author of article
  • The phrase "involvement of DSCC higher ups" would suggest to many readers that the higher-ups were complicit in a crime. In fact, however, according to the cited document, their involvement was that, upon learning of the incident, they ordered Weiner to destroy the credit report. They then reported their employee's misconduct to the U.S. Attorney's Office. So, yes, that's technically "involvement", but not the kind that would make the incident notable. It won't become "a cancer on the DSCC" (the Watergate analogy). JamesMLane t c 08:53, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
    • I simply meant it to include her boss who was also fired and complicit.--Tbeatty 16:41, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, because the story will be kept alive by partisans indefinitely and an objective reference will be useful. Monicasdude 04:18, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
• I quit petty, but I really can't freaking believe this. Had just come back from being gone, but am again reminded how ridiculous this place has become. Got better things to do. sorry, _bad_ week. think the article should go on the merits. but got upset thinking how rotten it is for some young person to be memorialized with a wikipedia article for the rest of her life over something like this; not exactly watergate, and best handled in the candidate's article. at any rate, delete Derex 01:53, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. She's a Brian Chase, not a John Siegenthaler. Gamaliel 04:33, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
  • I thought she was more of a Lori Klausutis and not a Joe Scarborough :) --Tbeatty 04:48, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete At best she should be merged with one of the associated articles, as an individual she is simply not notable. JoshuaZ 05:20, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete nn. --James 05:20, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Two reasons for my vote. Her search results return almost only (I haven't found a bio yet of 551) news results. She's a current event, so belongs in wikinews. That leads me to number two: that's where Watergate should be if this were just after the breaking. Move to Wikinews, or delete from here. I'd support recreation if it becomes more than the regular beltway scandal. T K E 07:29, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. This individual is nonnotable. The incident is mentioned in the article on Steele. I'm undecided about whether the Katie Barge article should stay. JamesMLane t c 08:53, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, nn-bio. She just got fined and did community service?? If that is the case, everyone who did that also will have an article here. --Terence Ong 09:39, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Relevant info about the incident should be in the Michael Steele article but she is way under the radar of deserving separate coverage. Thatcher131 12:38, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, TKE has it exactly right --Deville (Talk) 14:22, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
• Weak delete, I don't think she's notable enough just because of that incident. JIP | Talk 14:28, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete for lack of notability. Brian G. Crawford 16:03, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, no evidence of lasting notability. Rhobite 17:10, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. She played a role in this issue. Deserves an article. -- JJay 20:06, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete This person just doesn't have sufficient notability for a single article.--Dakota ~ ° 23:12, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per above. Newsworthy and noteworthy. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEME?) 23:23, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - just not notable enough by my standards. --Khoikhoi 03:08, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - If everyone who had their name in the Washington Post once deserved an article, WP would not be a very good encyclopedia. Bcarlson33 05:03, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. She's a Brian Chase. Kaldari 05:07, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete or Merge any unique information relevant to the article on Michael Steele. Not notable enough for separate article. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 06:30, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete or merge per RyanFreisling. ProhibitOnions 21:21, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Wikipedia is not Wikinews. Stifle 23:17, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
• Merge, per above information. Kukini 16:30, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep verifiable, meaningful news coverage... could be merged though I guess. --W.marsh 17:11, 5 April 2006 (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.