Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Megan Marshak
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--JForget 23:33, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Megan Marshak
Biography about a non-notable person. Marshak has no notability beyond the death of Nelson Rockefeller and various conspiracy theories related to that. Delete and redirect to death section of Rockefeller article. Dual Freq (talk) 01:12, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
- Note: It is not known if the person is currently living or dead. Proper spelling of last name may be Marshak or Marshack, but the subject is so non-notable that both spellings seem to be used in articles relating to Rockefeller's death. --Dual Freq (talk) 01:12, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
- Delete. Subject fails to meet WP:BIO guidelines. Ketsuekigata (talk) 01:40, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
- Strong Keep. I remember when this happened, and believe me, it made worldwide news when the Vice President died on top of this woman. This is a definitely notable keeper in the history of the Vice Presidency, like Cheney shooting that Republican lawyer in the face or the Burr/Hamilton duel or Agnew or Calhoun resigning. Vice Presidents are inherently notable and whenever they do things like shoot people or die on top of them the other person involved becomes automatically notable. Qworty (talk) 02:02, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
- "die on top of them"? None of that is mentioned in the sources listed. --Dual Freq (talk) 02:29, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
- You've read all 270 news articles in the eight minutes since I posted the link to them? You are a fast reader! The poor girl was pinned beneath his naked body when he died of the heart attack. It took her a long time to get out and when she finally did she was so scared out of her wits she didn't even call an ambulance. She called her friend and neighbor instead. All of this has been in the public record for decades. It should all be in the article. Qworty (talk) 02:44, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
- I've been down this road before. I did a lexis search last year when this came up and I could find no articles in the last 25+ years about her beyond his death. All you've mentioned above is tabloid / conspiracy theory stuff. --Dual Freq (talk) 02:50, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
- Uh, excuse me, but if you've already researched this, then you are aware that the ambulance workers found Rockefeller sprawled in the nude. How many men dictate to their secretaries in the nude? She just happened to be taking Gregg shorthand from a naked millionaire politician when his heart seized up . . . right? Nobody seriously believes that. Qworty (talk) 03:00, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
- If you want to cite a reliable source that information came from, then add it to Rockefeller's article. The discussion here is about her notability, and she is clearly not notable beyond Rockefeller, hence the suggestion to return to a redirect.I'm not saying to remove any information about her from Rockefeller's article. --Dual Freq (talk) 03:08, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
- We don't merge Lee Harvey Oswald into the John F. Kennedy article, nor John Wilkes Booth into the Abraham Lincoln article, nor Vicki Iseman into the John McCain article, nor Monica Lewinsky into the Bill Clinton article. Megan should have her own article as well. As for sources, would you consider CBC News reliable and non-tabloidish? They reported in 2002, "Nelson Rockefeller, the former U.S. vice-president, who keeled over in 1979 at the age of 70 while involved sexually with his 25-year-old personal assistant, a lovely woman named Megan Marshack." [1] Qworty (talk) 03:13, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
- If you want to cite a reliable source that information came from, then add it to Rockefeller's article. The discussion here is about her notability, and she is clearly not notable beyond Rockefeller, hence the suggestion to return to a redirect.I'm not saying to remove any information about her from Rockefeller's article. --Dual Freq (talk) 03:08, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
- Uh, excuse me, but if you've already researched this, then you are aware that the ambulance workers found Rockefeller sprawled in the nude. How many men dictate to their secretaries in the nude? She just happened to be taking Gregg shorthand from a naked millionaire politician when his heart seized up . . . right? Nobody seriously believes that. Qworty (talk) 03:00, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
- I've been down this road before. I did a lexis search last year when this came up and I could find no articles in the last 25+ years about her beyond his death. All you've mentioned above is tabloid / conspiracy theory stuff. --Dual Freq (talk) 02:50, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
- You've read all 270 news articles in the eight minutes since I posted the link to them? You are a fast reader! The poor girl was pinned beneath his naked body when he died of the heart attack. It took her a long time to get out and when she finally did she was so scared out of her wits she didn't even call an ambulance. She called her friend and neighbor instead. All of this has been in the public record for decades. It should all be in the article. Qworty (talk) 02:44, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
- "die on top of them"? None of that is mentioned in the sources listed. --Dual Freq (talk) 02:29, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
- Keep. This person has an intriguing connection to the death of a vice president. The fact that there are conspiracy theories about her tends to bolster the argument of notability. I can see where people would want to know more about her.--76.205.25.141 (talk) 02:12, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
- Keep Her name was in the news for weeks after this event. She is notable. --rogerd (talk) 02:18, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
- further evidence of notability: 270 news articles about her dating from 1979 onward: [2] Qworty (talk) 02:21, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
- What is the correct spelling of her last name? Marshak or Marshack? Is she still alive? Where is she today? All of those refer to Rockefeller's death, she is not notable beyond his death. --Dual Freq (talk) 02:29, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
- I think Marshack is correct, but a lot of sources did use Marshak. This does speak to your point. --Dhartung | Talk 02:32, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
- I think that participating in the death of a Vice President of the United States is pretty much the height of notability. She's only slightly less notable than Lee Harvey Oswald, and certainly more notable than Monica Lewinsky, who was involved in an executive-branch impeachment but not in an executive-branch death. Qworty (talk) 02:37, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
- Uh, "participating in the death"? You can't be serious. --Dhartung | Talk 02:38, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
- I've never been more serious about anything in my life. Burr killed Hamilton with a pistol. This girl killed Rockefeller with . . . well, do I have to spell it out for you? Granted, she didn't do it intentionally. But it is no less notable than the Burr/Hamilton duel in Vice Presidential history. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Qworty (talk • contribs) 02:47, April 7, 2008
- Uh, "participating in the death"? You can't be serious. --Dhartung | Talk 02:38, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
- What is the correct spelling of her last name? Marshak or Marshack? Is she still alive? Where is she today? All of those refer to Rockefeller's death, she is not notable beyond his death. --Dual Freq (talk) 02:29, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
- Redirect to Nelson Rockefeller. Not notable independently. JJL (talk) 02:19, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
- Redirect to Nelson Rockefeller. No independent notability (she has stayed wholly out of the news media for 30 years since, impressive accomplishment). As there were no criminal charges, no tell-all bio, and nothing but tabloid speculation, we have no business having this article under WP:BLP1E. --Dhartung | Talk 02:32, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
- Strong keep Like Qworty, I'm old enough to remember Megan Marshak. Rockefeller was no longer the VP when he died, although he was still quite prominent because of his wealth. There's nothing I see in the article that violates WP:BLP. She was quite notable in 1979, and as I understand Wikipedia rules, it is not required that she be notable in 2008. Mandsford (talk) 02:48, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
- Redirect to Nelson Rockefeller. This is a textbook case of WP:ONEEVENT. Jfire (talk) 03:36, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
-
-
- I know you said don't invoke WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS, but your argument is a textbook case of that too. Jfire (talk) 15:23, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
-
- Strong keep Her notability is no less than that of a presidential candidate's step-grandmother or the fling of a Congressman or many others whose sole notability is their proximity to power and whose names are known to the public (over age 50). This article is a stub, but it is well-sourced as far as it goes - far better than many. As for the spelling of her name, I believe this was determined a while ago, but I'll have to check it again as I don't recall - that's not a reason to delete. And I believe she is alive and working as a journalist, but I do not have a reliable source on that at present. (And since when is there a requirement that the current whereabouts of a subject be known for them to be considered notable?) Finally, last time I looked the New York Times was not a tabloid, and several of the source articles talk about her delaying the emergency services call and calling Ponchita Pierce first. By the way, neither this article, nor the section in Nelson Rockefeller, talk about unsourced conspiracy theories, nor should they. She's notable without them. Tvoz |talk 03:51, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
- This article is never going to be anything more than a coat rack / fork of Rockefeller's death section, as it has been in the past. Since there is very little biographical information known about Marshack/Marshak, (like the correct spelling of her last name or pretty much anything else beyond Rockefeller's death), this article will be nothing more than a dedicated article about Rockefeller's death filled with uncited and unverifiable speculation about the circumstances of his death. Here is an example of this article's past form and its likely future. --Dual Freq (talk) 21:45, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
- I object to that, Dual - that version dates back to 2006 and all of that speculative material has been scrupulously kept out of the article since then, during the times it has been a standalone piece. When I had a little time I did some research, as you will recall, and came up with a bunch of references verifying her role and I have stated several times that speculation and theory do not belong there. You have no legitimate basis on which to say that this is how the article is going to be in the future. My point is that it is a stub, and should be allowed to stand so that others can expand it if more information becomes available as it well might, considering her proximity to a former Vice President of the United States. This is a low priority stub, so right, I haven't had a chance to dedicate time to researching more on it. But I am not the only one editing the encyclopedia who has an interest in this historic time, and I believe more material may surface that can expand this piece, such as a new biography of Rockefeller. That's why we have the concept of stubs. WHat harm is this one causing the project? Tvoz |talk 23:31, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
- This article began as a coatrack in 2004 and the late 2006 version I linked above was hardly different. I think you made my point about notability by saying there might be a "new biography of Rockefeller". Its true that Rockefeller might have a new bio someday, but will there ever be a new biography of Marshack? Unless she writes one, no one else will and since she's managed to avoid the press for 29 year, I don't see anything new coming out on this anytime soon. Right now all an encyclopedia needs to say about Marshack is already at Nelson Rockefeller#Death. Wikipedia will certainly not be harmed by deleting and redirecting to Nelson Rockefeller#Death. If any actual biographical information about Marshack ever shows up, like parents, home town, education, correct spelling of last name, and employment history than at that point the issue could be revisited. Right now, its just one more page on a watchlist to continually revert so it doesn't turn back into this. It will never be more than a stub or a coatrack about Rockefeller's death. --Dual Freq (talk) 01:28, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
- And since 2006 there were periods of time when the article stood alone - and it has never devolved into the original inappropriate text. Furthermore, the death section in Rockefeller has not devolved into innuendo or conspiracy theory either and surely if you were right it would have. So your argument really doesn't hold water. Further, "continually revert"? Are you serious? There have not been so many reverts that put any strain on anyone's watchlist. Come watch Barack Obama if you want to see strain on a watchlist. Come on. Research for a biography about Rockefeller could easily provide new material about her, and all you're saying here is that there's no harm in redirecting it. I'm saying there's no harm in letting it stand - and you haven't shown that there is. I don't think this is the most important thing in the world, but unless there's some harm to the project by keeping it I don't see any reason to remove it. If your watchlist is too long - and believe me, I know how that feels - then remove it. There are other people who will keep an eye on it and not allow it to turn into what you oppose. Tvoz |talk 02:08, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
- I don't see anything here that shows she is notable beyond Rockefeller's death as stated in the nomination. You've had over a year to research this and we still have nothing but a stub about Rockefeller's death with some "speculation" in the press that's supposed to be a biography of Marshack. She's not notable enough for anyone to write a biography about, even in 1979. Right now, even as a stub, it's an article about Rockefeller's death. Since that's all it will ever be, it should be redirected to Nelson Rockefeller#Death. And I don't think WP:NOHARM is a valid reason to keep an article. --Dual Freq (talk) 03:10, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
- And since 2006 there were periods of time when the article stood alone - and it has never devolved into the original inappropriate text. Furthermore, the death section in Rockefeller has not devolved into innuendo or conspiracy theory either and surely if you were right it would have. So your argument really doesn't hold water. Further, "continually revert"? Are you serious? There have not been so many reverts that put any strain on anyone's watchlist. Come watch Barack Obama if you want to see strain on a watchlist. Come on. Research for a biography about Rockefeller could easily provide new material about her, and all you're saying here is that there's no harm in redirecting it. I'm saying there's no harm in letting it stand - and you haven't shown that there is. I don't think this is the most important thing in the world, but unless there's some harm to the project by keeping it I don't see any reason to remove it. If your watchlist is too long - and believe me, I know how that feels - then remove it. There are other people who will keep an eye on it and not allow it to turn into what you oppose. Tvoz |talk 02:08, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
- This article began as a coatrack in 2004 and the late 2006 version I linked above was hardly different. I think you made my point about notability by saying there might be a "new biography of Rockefeller". Its true that Rockefeller might have a new bio someday, but will there ever be a new biography of Marshack? Unless she writes one, no one else will and since she's managed to avoid the press for 29 year, I don't see anything new coming out on this anytime soon. Right now all an encyclopedia needs to say about Marshack is already at Nelson Rockefeller#Death. Wikipedia will certainly not be harmed by deleting and redirecting to Nelson Rockefeller#Death. If any actual biographical information about Marshack ever shows up, like parents, home town, education, correct spelling of last name, and employment history than at that point the issue could be revisited. Right now, its just one more page on a watchlist to continually revert so it doesn't turn back into this. It will never be more than a stub or a coatrack about Rockefeller's death. --Dual Freq (talk) 01:28, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
- I object to that, Dual - that version dates back to 2006 and all of that speculative material has been scrupulously kept out of the article since then, during the times it has been a standalone piece. When I had a little time I did some research, as you will recall, and came up with a bunch of references verifying her role and I have stated several times that speculation and theory do not belong there. You have no legitimate basis on which to say that this is how the article is going to be in the future. My point is that it is a stub, and should be allowed to stand so that others can expand it if more information becomes available as it well might, considering her proximity to a former Vice President of the United States. This is a low priority stub, so right, I haven't had a chance to dedicate time to researching more on it. But I am not the only one editing the encyclopedia who has an interest in this historic time, and I believe more material may surface that can expand this piece, such as a new biography of Rockefeller. That's why we have the concept of stubs. WHat harm is this one causing the project? Tvoz |talk 23:31, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
- This article is never going to be anything more than a coat rack / fork of Rockefeller's death section, as it has been in the past. Since there is very little biographical information known about Marshack/Marshak, (like the correct spelling of her last name or pretty much anything else beyond Rockefeller's death), this article will be nothing more than a dedicated article about Rockefeller's death filled with uncited and unverifiable speculation about the circumstances of his death. Here is an example of this article's past form and its likely future. --Dual Freq (talk) 21:45, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
- Redirect. I doubt the bio could be completed with anything noteworthy, and she is not noteworthy beyond the one incident. MrPrada (talk) 04:41, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
- Redirect. She wasn't Wiki-notable in 1979 and that hasn't changed. Clarityfiend (talk) 05:39, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
- Really? That's not the way I remember 1979 - why did so many respectable newspaper articles and tv news reports include her name, and talk about her if she wasn't notable? Are you familiar with the stub about Fanne Foxe (and please don't invoke WP:othercrapexists)? Tvoz |talk 14:41, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
- Really, as in not failing WP:ONEEVENT and WP:NOT#NEWS back then. Clarityfiend (talk) 02:00, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
- Strong keep That there isn't a lot more to say about her doesn't mean there shouldn't be an entry about her in the project. A person doesn't have to continually reassert their notability - once it is established, the person is notable. Marshak's notability was firmly established at the time of the incident. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk / cont) 07:35, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
- Keep: Wikipedia guidelines are very clear that notability does not decay. —Quasirandom (talk) 15:30, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
- Keep. If Monica Lewinsky and Mark David Chapman are relevant, this article is sufficiently relevant as well. The article contributes to the understanding of the scandal, and that should be enough to constitute relevance for a stand-alone article. --Abrech (talk) 13:32, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
- There is no comparison with Marshack and those two people, especially not with Chapman who actually shot and killed someone. There's nothing remotely reliably sourced that places her in the category of assassin. The body of work about Lewinsky and Chapman is much larger than for Marshack and the details in both wikipedia biographies show that. There were very few biographical, personal details about Marshack in the news in 1979 and over the past 29 years there has been essentially no follow up on her unlike Lewinsky and Chapman. Their stories have been revisited numerous times by the media after their initial fame. All notable details about her are directly related to Rockefeller's death and are address adequately there. We don't need a Death of Nelson Rockefeller article and that's all that Marshack's article is. --Dual Freq (talk) 22:00, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
- Wow, I very strongly disagree. Marshack is more notable than Chapman or Lewinski. In all three cases, notability is dependent on an incident with a highly notable person. Obviously, Marshack absolutely didn't plan on killing Rockefeller--it was an accident--but he surely died. Marshack is more notable than Chapman because a dead Vice President of the United States (even a former one) will always be a more notable person than a dead musician. Marshack is more notable than Lewinski because Lewinski never did anything that led to anybody's death. Impeachment, yes, death, no. Finally, for those who claim there was no sex involved in the Rockefeller case, you have to argue that he was in the habit of giving dictation to his female assistant in the nude. That would not only be WP:OR, but a completely absurd case of WP:OR that no rational person would ever believe. Also, it doesn't matter if this happened back in 1979--or 1979 B.C., for that matter. If a woman had done this to a vice pharaoh in Ptolemaic times, you'd better bet it would still be encyclopedic in 2008 A.D. Editors who are arguing that the date is any way significant are guilty of WP:recentism. Qworty (talk) 03:00, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
- Lewinsky is still in the news, ten years later while Marshack has not been in the news since 1979. Though Marshack was in the news for a brief period in 1979, no one bothered to write a biography of her at the time, no one ever will. Lewinsky and Chapman have been the subject of several books as well, Marshack has been the subject of no books. The points you have listed about Marshack are a good example of original research and conspiracy theories about Rockefeller's death. I think you prove my point that the article is not about Marshack, but is really about coatracking Rockefeller's article. --Dual Freq (talk) 11:39, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
- Wow, I very strongly disagree. Marshack is more notable than Chapman or Lewinski. In all three cases, notability is dependent on an incident with a highly notable person. Obviously, Marshack absolutely didn't plan on killing Rockefeller--it was an accident--but he surely died. Marshack is more notable than Chapman because a dead Vice President of the United States (even a former one) will always be a more notable person than a dead musician. Marshack is more notable than Lewinski because Lewinski never did anything that led to anybody's death. Impeachment, yes, death, no. Finally, for those who claim there was no sex involved in the Rockefeller case, you have to argue that he was in the habit of giving dictation to his female assistant in the nude. That would not only be WP:OR, but a completely absurd case of WP:OR that no rational person would ever believe. Also, it doesn't matter if this happened back in 1979--or 1979 B.C., for that matter. If a woman had done this to a vice pharaoh in Ptolemaic times, you'd better bet it would still be encyclopedic in 2008 A.D. Editors who are arguing that the date is any way significant are guilty of WP:recentism. Qworty (talk) 03:00, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
- There is no comparison with Marshack and those two people, especially not with Chapman who actually shot and killed someone. There's nothing remotely reliably sourced that places her in the category of assassin. The body of work about Lewinsky and Chapman is much larger than for Marshack and the details in both wikipedia biographies show that. There were very few biographical, personal details about Marshack in the news in 1979 and over the past 29 years there has been essentially no follow up on her unlike Lewinsky and Chapman. Their stories have been revisited numerous times by the media after their initial fame. All notable details about her are directly related to Rockefeller's death and are address adequately there. We don't need a Death of Nelson Rockefeller article and that's all that Marshack's article is. --Dual Freq (talk) 22:00, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
(outdent) I have never alleged a conspiracy theory about Rockefeller's death. Where in the world are you getting that? In fact, nobody in this entire AfD discussion has claimed that anybody was out to get Rockefeller, and yet you keep saying conspiracy, conspiracy, conspiracy. If someone had been trying to kill Rockefeller, then having his pretty assistant screw him to death would certainly be an absurd way to go about it, don't you think? And again, be aware of WP:recentism: Notability does not depend on WHEN an event occurred. The same can be said for the books you cite. If the publishing industry had been as scandal-driven in 1979 as it is today, you can bet your sweet bippy there would've been half-a-dozen books about Marshack in 1979. Are you not aware of the changes in publishing since that time? We can't judge Marshack by the publishing standards of today--that too is a form of WP:recentism. So I don't see any logical underpinnings to your argument here. Most of it is WP:recentism, with a little bit of straw man thrown in, claiming that the article's advocates have stated a conspiracy to kill Rockefeller, when not a single person in this discussion has done so. Qworty (talk) 17:25, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
- Straw man? I'm not the one comparing her with assassins like Oswald Booth and Chapman or saying she is more notable than Lewinsky. The only thing we can judge notability by is body of work that a subject has had written about them. We can't use rumors and folklore about Rockefeller's death as a source, we have to use published sources. Since there are essentially no sources of biographical information about Marshack, how would you propose that we write a biography about her? The answer is that we can't. She was not notable enough in '79 to have biographical details published by books, magazines or newspapers and nothing has been published since. As others mentioned above, she wasn't notable in 1979 either. What is notable is Rockefeller's death, that is the one event and it is covered in his article. --Dual Freq (talk) 21:26, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
- Do you know what straw man means? Please read up on it. As to your other points--Nobody is suggesting we use rumors or folklore in the article. The published reports STATE that Rockefeller was found in the nude. That's not a rumor. That's not folklore. And yes, if Chapman and Lewinsky are going to have their own articles, then Marshack merits one as well. By your own argument, Chapman and Lewinski are nothing but one event people. Why aren't you arguing that their articles be merged respectively into the Lennon and Clinton articles? Do you really believe for a minute that either Chapman or Lewinski would be notable at all if it weren't for one event? How in the world is Chapman notable outside of that one event? Because he was a fan of The Catcher in the Rye and lived for a time in Hawaii? How in the world is Lewinski notable outside of her sex relationship with Bill, most of the details of which are, as you say, heavily "rumored" and "folkloric"? Do you really think she's notable for the handbags she designed afterwards? When we talk policy, we have to apply it evenly, across the board. And you can't possibly argue that Marshack wasn't notable in 1979. Look at all of the published reports! She sure as heck was more notable than Chapman or Lewinski in that year! Why are you trying to erase the historical record? Qworty (talk) 00:37, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
- As I said before the published body of work for Chapman and Lewinsky is what makes them notable and provides us with source material. Many stories are in print about both of them. They have books published about them. Their stories were followed up by major media after the events they were associated with were long over. Marshack had none of that. No biographical pieces in 1979, no follow ups. No where are they now notes. No books. Nothing. There is nothing more that can be said about her in the article because nothing about her has been published. We don't need a Circumstances of Nelson Rockefeller's death speculation coatrack article pretending to be a "biography" about Marshack. Judging by your answers, you're not interested in Marshack herself, just the innuendo and rumors associated with his death. --Dual Freq (talk) 01:04, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
- Why do you persist in repeating this false accusation/prediction that the page is or is going to be a speculation coatrack? It is not now and it won't be in the future as long as responsible editors monitor it. If it is too much for your watchlist, then you can be assured that it will remain on others'. Have I not removed anything that approached speculation on this page in the past? If properly sourced information appears, we'll include it. If it isn't properly sourced, we won't, Just like all other articles. Tvoz |talk 01:32, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
- You're right. Currently, there is no OR / speculation, but there's also no biography of Marshack either. --Dual Freq (talk) 01:41, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
- Why do you persist in repeating this false accusation/prediction that the page is or is going to be a speculation coatrack? It is not now and it won't be in the future as long as responsible editors monitor it. If it is too much for your watchlist, then you can be assured that it will remain on others'. Have I not removed anything that approached speculation on this page in the past? If properly sourced information appears, we'll include it. If it isn't properly sourced, we won't, Just like all other articles. Tvoz |talk 01:32, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
- As I said before the published body of work for Chapman and Lewinsky is what makes them notable and provides us with source material. Many stories are in print about both of them. They have books published about them. Their stories were followed up by major media after the events they were associated with were long over. Marshack had none of that. No biographical pieces in 1979, no follow ups. No where are they now notes. No books. Nothing. There is nothing more that can be said about her in the article because nothing about her has been published. We don't need a Circumstances of Nelson Rockefeller's death speculation coatrack article pretending to be a "biography" about Marshack. Judging by your answers, you're not interested in Marshack herself, just the innuendo and rumors associated with his death. --Dual Freq (talk) 01:04, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
- Do you know what straw man means? Please read up on it. As to your other points--Nobody is suggesting we use rumors or folklore in the article. The published reports STATE that Rockefeller was found in the nude. That's not a rumor. That's not folklore. And yes, if Chapman and Lewinsky are going to have their own articles, then Marshack merits one as well. By your own argument, Chapman and Lewinski are nothing but one event people. Why aren't you arguing that their articles be merged respectively into the Lennon and Clinton articles? Do you really believe for a minute that either Chapman or Lewinski would be notable at all if it weren't for one event? How in the world is Chapman notable outside of that one event? Because he was a fan of The Catcher in the Rye and lived for a time in Hawaii? How in the world is Lewinski notable outside of her sex relationship with Bill, most of the details of which are, as you say, heavily "rumored" and "folkloric"? Do you really think she's notable for the handbags she designed afterwards? When we talk policy, we have to apply it evenly, across the board. And you can't possibly argue that Marshack wasn't notable in 1979. Look at all of the published reports! She sure as heck was more notable than Chapman or Lewinski in that year! Why are you trying to erase the historical record? Qworty (talk) 00:37, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
(outdent) That makes no sense. First of all, sources DO exist. Secondly, there is no WP policy that requires this article to be as lengthy as the one on Winston Churchill. Articles are as long as they need to be. Qworty (talk) 20:19, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
- Keep. There`s more information than would fit in his article. Heroeswithmetaphors (talk) 06:35, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
- Keep. Extensive reliable, verifiable sourcing meets WP:N critera. Minos P. Dautrieve (talk) 18:05, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
- Keep. I am yet another Wikipedian who vividly remembers the news and her name -- after 29 years. She may be famous for just one event, but that event was a major one, and her name continues to show up in news media. Additionally, there may still be more to her story. One of my Google hits on her name is to a review of a biography of cartoonist Charles Addams that names Megan Marshack as one of the women in Addams' life.[3] --Orlady (talk) 20:26, 13 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.
