Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vicki Iseman (2nd nomination)

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 delete, though I fully expect this one to be controversial. It's BLP1E, and the majority (though not overwhelming) support deletion or merge. NO PREJUDICE against recreation to redirect, and I'll be happy to userfy for anyone who asks. - Philippe 03:17, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

The above result was overturned at deletion review. Article restored by User:Mackensen. 14:24, 15 May 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Vicki Iseman

AfDs for this article:
Articles for deletion/Vicki Iseman Articles for deletion/Vicki Iseman (2nd nomination)
Vicki Iseman (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View log)

BLP1E clear-cut deletion. Was notable VERY BRIEFLY for a single action and event, and then dropped utterly off of the visible news cycle radar. The last AFD made mention to her "growing notoriety". Where and when did it grow, beyond the week CNN kept talking about her? She's notable for allegedly having a possible relationship with John McCain. And...? Delete under a textbook BLP1E. Lawrence Cohen § t/e 23:12, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

  • Well, list them for deletion and they should be reviewed. Not being American, her political affiliation was the least of my deciding factors. Risker (talk) 01:23, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
Comment We just seem to have this unbalanced deletion philosophy. How are the Broddrick, Browning, Perdue and Gracen articles different from, better sourced, or less objectionable in a BLP1E sense than this one? Edison (talk) 01:26, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
Comment If you nominate Browning and Perdue, I'll !vote to delete them. Broaddrick is much more notable, and Gracen's acting career is substantial enough that one of her characters has its own article in Wikipedia. While you're grinding your partisan axe, however, don't forget to nominate Jennifer Fitzgerald, who is just as non-notable as Browning and Perdue. Horologium (talk) 01:43, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
Comment See WP:WAX. Other articles have no bearing on this one. Ros0709 (talk) 12:10, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
Comment See WP:WAX:

While these comparisons are not a conclusive test, they may form part of a cogent argument; an entire comment should not be dismissed because it includes a comparative statement like this.

∴ Therefore | talk 00:25, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Delete Per nom.Insearchofintelligentlife (talk) 01:52, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

  • Keep -- as User:Edison noted it would be a disservice to readers who look to the wikipedia for neutral coverage of controversial topics to delete this article. I noted in the original {{afd}} that having separate articles for Iseman and McCain allows readers who are interested in McCain, and not Iseman to place McCain on their watchlist, and leave Iseman off -- and vice versa. Geo Swan (talk) 21:39, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment - Just what percentage of Wikipedia readers do you think make up an account, log in, and check their watchlists when they want to read about John McCain or Vicky Iseman? In fact, what makes people think that anyone is really coming to Wikipedia to read about Vicky Iseman? Taking a look at the article hits, only once since the very first days of this article has it had more than 20 hits in a day, and it averages about 7. Separate watchlists is the least of anyone's issue here. Risker (talk) 22:06, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Note: I have been asked to provide some background on where the numbers in the above comment come from. There is a tool available here, developed by User:Henrik, that provides page view statistics for any WP page; I used this when making the above comment. I will note that my average was way off as I had done it by eyeballing the numbers instead of actually dividing number of hits by day of month: in March 2008, the article received an average of 4.1 page views per day, and this month to date, despite an ongoing AfD, it has received 4.9 page views per day. This is less than 10% of the daily page views for either Sally Perdue or Dolly Kyle Browning for the same period. Hope this is helpful. Risker (talk) 17:11, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
  • keep or barring that merge/redirect to John McCain lobbyist controversy. It is now apparent that this story did not become as focused on her as it initially seemed it would. However, we have no substantial reason to delete this article. Iseman has made request of the project and BLP-penumbra deletions should not occur unless we have a request by the individual to have the article removed or it is painfully obvious that they would prefer not to have an article. Neither of these has occurred. In any event, a redirect definitely makes sense. JoshuaZ (talk) 02:55, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete with redirect per Shoemaker's. --Orange Mike | Talk 14:19, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete and redirect per above. Iseman is non-notable. Ral315 (talk) 01:37, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete and redirect per Doc and others. Hiding T 11:14, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Merge and redirect to John McCain lobbyist controversy per WP:BLP1E and the essay WP:PSEUDO. She is not notable in her own right; the controversy is. WaltonOne 14:30, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete with redirect as original page shepherd/defender. I believe I've explained my own rationale and reasoning best here. I hold that because the page was logically evolved, tightly constructed and sourced, and well-watched by mature eyes, page never became a danger to the pedia or to its subject. My arguments then were based on a trust of my original intention, to build the page correctly. May I be seen as munching raven on wild rice today. BusterD (talk) 15:26, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
It appears that my self deprecating humor goes unappreciated by some. "Cooked corbie" and "raven on wild rice" refer to my eating crow this afternoon, after defending the exact same article and version from deletion in February, and endorsing them for deletion today. As far as I know, the only thing which has changed here is my opinion; in retrospect my stridency at that time now seems misplaced. BusterD public (talk) 19:56, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
In re-reading my comments above (and after some ungentle prodding by User:Geo Swan), it appears I didn't identify any reason I changed my opinion on this subject since deletion review. First, my admitted bias (as contributor) was more intense at the time of those first processes. With two month's distance, I hold much less attachment than I felt at the time. Second, subject has (perhaps intentionally) avoided additional media coverage since the NYTimes story broke, so I'm beginning to question notability, based on BLP guides discussed in previous processes. While I still hold that WP:BLP1E doesn't apply here, because the Times story discussed subject's professional interactions over a long period of time, in retrospect I wish I had trusted my own judgment less, and that of vastly more seasoned editors, more. I respect the powerful argument User:John254 has made below, and it's an argument closing admins in the first AfD and DRV both raised as rationale. I just don't think I'd take the same positions if given another identical chance to do so. BusterD (talk) 12:24, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Merge and redirect to John McCain lobbyist controversy. The event itself is notable, and relevant information should be placed there. Celarnor Talk to me 21:15, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. —Geo Swan (talk) 21:46, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep, and quite frankly, merging and redirecting is the worst option. Redirecting a living person's name to a "controversy" (or worse, a "scandal") article is much more disrespectful and far more harmful to the subject than having a biography, because a redirect ties the person up to the controversy even though there is more to the person than that. In this case I prefer the article be retained, the fact that she has lobbied in a number of cases illustrates that she has had some political influence in Washington. The article properly focuses on her career and not on the controversy, which is what it should do. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:02, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep -- An important aspect of the enforcement of Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons is to uphold the intent of the policy, not to enforce the letter of the policy in a manner contrary to its purpose -- see WP:NOT#BUREAUCRACY. Arguments for the deletion of this article focus on a largely mechanical application of WP:BLP1E to the subject matter, without considering whether the general mandate of the policy to strictly adhere to a neutral point of view and "do no harm" is thereby effectuated. Is it seriously contended that limiting coverage of Vicki Iseman to the John McCain lobbyist controversy article, thereby covering only the controversial aspects of her life, and nothing about the positive aspects of her career, somehow furthers the application of WP:NPOV and "do no harm"? Deletion of the article is radically inconsistent with the purpose of the biographies of living persons policy, as the deletion would compromise our neutrality and fair treatment of Vicki Iseman by ensuring that we provide no positive coverage whatsoever, and instead mention only the controversy surrounding her. John254 00:08, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
    • Very well-said. I hope the closing admin will discount the several "per nom" entries here, which have not addressed the concerns that this nomination was counter to policy. Geo Swan (talk) 10:10, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete per Doc. We should cover the event, not the person. BWH76 (talk) 16:24, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
  • "If reliable sources only cover the person in the context of a particular event...." The reliable sources include some unrelated to the event.
  • "Marginal biographies on people with no independent notability can give undue weight to the events in the context of the individual...." Several of the sources are independent. The article does not give undue weight to the event controversy -- only a mention.
  • "create redundancy" The article does not replicate any information on the related pages. It provides background on the individual.
  • "create ... additional maintenance overhead" Granted: Extra disk space, extra CPU cycles for interested readers, extra watchlist entries.
  • "cause problems for our neutral point of view policy" How is the existence of this article a vio of NPOV? The page is written with a neutral voice from reliable sources.
There are plenty of pages for lobbyists [2].
The objective of the nom is to delete all of the article's detail. Are those voting for a merge suggesting the article's details be included in the controversy article (which is the definition of a merge)? Why should it? Where is the harm in providing the interested reader additional information about this lobbyist? Why include in the controversy article details of Iseman unrelated to the controversy but here provides background? ∴ Therefore | talk 17:29, 24 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.