Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Madeline Haithcock (2nd nomination)

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 delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 04:25, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Madeline Haithcock

Madeline Haithcock (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Requesting this be deleted as the subject is not notable, and the article fails WP:BLP for completely lacking reliable sources of a non-trivial nature anyhow. Burntsauce 18:39, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

• Delete, I would imagine that being alderman of a city doesn't automatically make one notable. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 18:43, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
• Weak keep--if sourced. This is Chicago, where I think Alderman often have a major political role, but still of course not automatically notable--, but significant controversies are mentioned which should be sourceable. DGG (talk) 02:31, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
• Weak Keep for the same reason DGG supplied. — Moe ε 19:44, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

The entire article fails WP:BLP, which parts do you suggest we "weak keep"?? Burntsauce 22:53, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

First off, I don't week keep, I weak keep. No, it doesn't fail BLP. You're wild interpretation of BLP has gotten the better of you yet again. From BLP:

Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material — whether negative, positive, or just questionable — about living persons should be removed immediately and without discussion from Wikipedia articles

Emphasis mine. Something not having sources does not automatically label it contentious and thus deletable. I said weak keep per the same reason DGG, it needs more references. I already explained to you in full what BLP is on your talk page when you went around blanking articles of non-contentious material, so don't go wikilawyering BLP to everyone when you can't even accuratly cite it. — Moe ε 01:09, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

You can place undue emphasis anywhere you'd like, but this article still fails WP:BLP policy and should be deleted. Burntsauce 17:09, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

• Weak keep per DGG and Moe. Bearian 23:10, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete I disagree with DGG's reasoning in this situation. Accusing a politician of 'being in the pocket of developers and special interests' is a pretty broad charge that has been leveled against a large majority of politicians. There are no specifics listed detailing any particular project that was somehow widely opposed by the public at large and was approved by Ms. Haithcock. If you went to a random article for a member of Congress and added 'Congressman X is widely viewed as beholden to special interests', how much would you wager that that comment would be reverted in a hurry as an unsourced POV statement. That statement should be removed from this article under the same grounds. And without that paragraph, what do you have? An individual who was appointed to a city council seat who seems to have had an unremarkable two terms in office.Montco 03:30, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom, no evidence of notability and fails living policy due to lack of reliable sourcing. RFerreira 20:10, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
• Comment, if this is the second nom, where is the first AfD? Darrenhusted 00:14, 30 July 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.