Talk:Barbara Comstock

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article was nominated for deletion on 2006-12-31. The result of the discussion was delete.

This article must adhere to the policy on biographies of living persons. Controversial material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted or if there are other concerns relative to this policy, report it on the living persons biographies noticeboard.

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.	Biography Portal
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]
	This article is supported by the Politics and government work group.

[edit] Maura Larkins

I was curious about the reasons for deleting Wikipedia articles, so I read this one. I Googled Barbara Comstock, and found that the information presented was confirmed by the website of the US Department of Justice, and the law firm where Comstock currently works. I have no connection to the author or Barbara Comstock, but I feel strongly that true, verifiable, and verified information should not be deleted. That policy just maintains ignorance. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mauralarkins (talk • contribs). 19:22, December 30, 2006

The article does not provide any verifiable sources, nor does it indicate in any way how the subject is notable. Mere existence is an poor excuse for an encyclopedia article. Perhaps there is something more noteworthy to say about the subject, but there is nothing at present to indicate this. older ≠ wiser 19:51, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

User:Bkonrad 19:51, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

The website of the US Dept of Justice is not verifiable? The law firm website I gave is not verifiable? I wanted to work on an article about which I have NO biases, and this is it. Are you particularly uninterested in United States government? Maybe you should set up a rule for yourself not to work on articles about American government. Plenty of people in the US are interested in the people who make decisions about terrorism cases and other matters of both national and worldwide importance. There was never at any time any negative information about this person.

By the way, "older" might not necessarily be "wiser," but the two aren't mutually exclusive. In fact, they go together more frequently than "younger" and "wiser." Have you perhaps found that as the years go by, you get no wiser? Mauralarkins 20:48, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

There was no specific citation provided for the information you claim came from the Department of Justice website. Wikipedia:Citing sources provides some guidelines about how to cite your sources. This is an essential step for contributing information to Wikipedia. It is not acceptable to cite the "website of the US Dept of Justice" without providing a specific source within that website -- just as it would be unacceptable to cite a library, rather than a specific publication contained within the library. You mentioned the name of a law firm, but did not provide any link to the website, let alone to a specific page within the website as would be necessary for citing a source. I have never claimed that there was any negative information in the article, only that there were no verifiable sources provided and no indication of why there should be an encyclopedia article about this person. older ≠ wiser 21:22, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Maura Larkins

I have added links to the US DOJ webpage with Comstock's statement, a CNN interview of Comstock, and her personal webpage on her law firm's website. I feel it would be inappropriate to transfer information from her self-promoting web page to a Wikipedia article. Mauralarkins 01:01, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] To Bkonrad

It's fine with me if you delete this page. I didn't start the page, and I chose it randomly to see if it would get deleted even if I added links and quotes showing that this person was the chief spokesperson for the DOJ and John Ashcroft. I'm personally glad that I learned about Barbara's existence, because I like to know about people in politics and people in power. But my experiment was simply an effort to find out if Wikipedia would decide to limit others' knowledge of her. I'm a liberal myself, so obviously Barbara Comstock is no hero of mine. Still, I think it's a clearly unbiased article, and I'll be interested in the outcome no matter which way it goes.Mauralarkins 22:01, 31 December 2006 (UTC)