Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jennifer Fitzgerald

Add links
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 Clear consensus to delete. The rewrite has not addressed the concerns that this bio picks out a small part of the subject's life. Kevin (talk) 23:12, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jennifer Fitzgerald[edit]

Jennifer Fitzgerald (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Essentially, this is a woman that was loosely alluded to in a handful of biographical works, and was another person's secretary, who was at one point accused by a handful of people of possibly maybe perhaps having an affair with someone, but this was never shown to be true, and is a political rumor/ploy from 1988 disguised as a Wikipedia BLP article.

Delete, for BLP concerns, and for simple lack of genuine notability on her own. At most this deserves a one or two sentence sourced footnote on the George H. W. Bush article, and not even a redirect in our MediaWiki system. rootology (C)(T) 15:46, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Damn, you beat me here. Yes, this should go, it is a record of a old rumour posing as biography. (See WP:COATRACK)--Scott Mac (Doc) 15:56, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I started looking at this last week. From my checking of the content and the sources, the article is not about her. It is about what other people think about her. Many of the people have not spoken on the record about her except to say that there were rumors about her. After looking into the issue, I don't think a move to rename is appropriate, either. FloNight♥♥♥ 16:05, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Still delete. Lack of sources that discuss Fitzgerald life. The sources used are about Bush and discuss his relationship to her. This information should be presented in an article about Bush where proper context can be explained. Cobbling together bits of information found in pieces that primarily discuss Bush gives a distorted impression of her. When bits of information are plucked from sources that frame the person in a narrow way, then we are not writing a biography, instead the article is a piece about a sliver of the persons life. In this instance, I see no way that this can be fixed given the available sources. I continue to suggest deletion as the best way to address the undue weight issues. FloNight♥♥♥ 13:37, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- I'mperator 16:31, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk  16:33, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete; this poses BLP issues with undue weight and the article appears to be a WP:COATRACK as noted above. I can see maybe mentioning this somewhere on the George H.W. Bush page and redirecting there, but even that is questionable; I consider myself fairly politically knowledgeable and had never once heard of this individual before now. Someone should also delete the fair-use image which calls her a "recluse" in its description. *** Crotalus *** 16:37, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: this line is particularly maddening: Hillary Clinton mentioned Fitzgerald in an interview with Vanity Fair, but her last name was not used. (So she mentioned "a Jennifer"? Then why would we say she mentioned Fitzgerald?) –xeno talk 16:45, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    It still sortof lacks a solid assertion of notability ("worked for George H. W. Bush in several different capacities" is a little weak), but I suppose keep based on the elimination of the BLP issue and improvements by ARS and per DGG. –xeno talk 03:03, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless expanded with something to demonstrate notability (no, not that). Someone at this level could have achievements in her own right to warrant coverage, but at the moment there's no indication of it. – iridescent 16:48, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Still delete. Although it's been expanded, most of the "notability" comes from claims by Kitty Kelley, who's an inherently unreliable source, especially when it comes to BLPs. The other references are one-line mentions in articles on other subjects (e.g.) – the only significant one (with the possible exception of the books, but neither look likely to say anything of substance about her) is "Jennifer A. Fitzgerald, technically Bush's assistant for scheduling but in reality a dominant figure who has much to say about where Bush goes, what he does and whom he sees" in Time. Yes, we have comparable articles such as Anji Hunter, but those are created from sources about the subject; this one appears to be drawn entirely from tangential mentions of Fitzgerald in articles and books on other subjects. Given the gaping gaps – this article is just a list of her job titles, with no mention of her personal life, any event in the first 42 years of her life, her political positions, family, even a date of birth – the article as it stands still isn't viable. – iridescent 19:35, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I came upon this article last week when I was categorizing BLPs for WP:UBLP, and I wasn't sure what to do with it. Considering the main author, I posted to the talk and to WP:BLP/N. As I said there, I don't believe this is appropriate for inclusion, as it's only allegations and rumor. A BLP nightmare, really. لennavecia 16:53, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sustained delete following the "improvements" by the ARS. Still fails multiple criteria, most importantly BLP. These are nothing but allegations. It's inappropriate. لennavecia 20:22, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete- should have been tagged for speedy on grounds of WP:BLP, WP:RS, WP:N etc etc. The article is merely speculation masquerading as fact and has no place in an encyclopaedia! HJ Mitchell (talk) 17:29, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This article is a rumour masquerading as a biography. --Malleus Fatuorum 17:31, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can we at least merge some of the content into 1988 U.S. presidential election (Oh, I see it's already there). I wrote most of this years ago, before we had BLP. I can understand why we ought not to have a stand-alone article, but in the context of that campaign it is notable. Daniel Case (talk) 17:44, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not opposed to that if there is anything actually reliably sourced that is of use to that article. ++Lar: t/c 18:25, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Stub this down now (yes, locking the barn after the horse has long been picked up by Google, but still...) and delete at the conclusion of this AfD. Or sooner. ++Lar: t/c 18:25, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as above and also WP:ATP Martin451 (talk) 21:14, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep If "what other people think of her" is found in RSs, she's notable. What's here shows a notable political figure. Earlier problems seem to have been solved. DGG (talk) 02:24, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • How do you suggest that Wikipedia editors address the significant undue weight issue with this article since the sources used view her through the narrow spectrum of explaining Bush's relationship with her? Given that there is a scarcity of information that discuss "her" life, why is the information not best presented in an article about Bush where proper context can be given? I don't see this article as a biography of her life as written now but rather scraps of material cobbled together that touch on a tiny aspect of the person. It makes no sense to keep articles such as this one when they have known undue weight issues, have the potential to be chronic BLP problems, and are unlikely to ever be a thorough well written entry. It not sensible for Wikipedia to continue down the path of presenting information like this article as a stand alone biography when we know that it will keep Wikipedia from being know as an encyclopedia with high quality articles. FloNight♥♥♥ 14:18, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note This article has been rewritten from scratch by the Article Rescue Squadron. Though incomplete and likely to improve in the coming week, I believe the current version goes a long way to address early concerns. Early commenters are encouraged to review the latest version of the article and the closing admin is asked to interpret early !votes in the context of the state of the article at the time of commenting. Thanks, Skomorokh 02:30, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note - it is still using the same sources that refer to the relationship not the person. So, the concerns are not met for me. This person is not notable, all that is (perhaps) notable is a rumoured and denied affair. That can be recorded on an article on Bush, or the election. We don't have biographies of people notable for alleged (and denied) rumours, and built from sources of the same.--Scott Mac (Doc) 07:32, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Pathetic choice of tagging. The article is not uncited. The issue with the article is the content. It's not a biography, and she's not notable. There's been no meaningful "improvement" to the article. لennavecia 20:22, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete just read it now. Still fails BIO, N, with some BLP concerns about the affair rumors thrown in. Why doesn't the ARS partrol the thousands of uncited articles? THere's a category for that even.Bali ultimate (talk) 18:37, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep Rewritten version is substantially improved and demonstrates her notability. Indeed, the draft I am looking at now makes apparently no mention of the affair accusation (which is almost certainly not good. UNDUE issues are important but if we are going to have this article it should probably get a sentence). In any event, Fitzgerald was as the executive assistant of the Vice-President a high ranking individual akin to say Betty Currie. The article as written does a good job of showing her successful career which has led to her discussion in many sources. Meets WP:BIO. JoshuaZ (talk) 03:42, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • the comparison with Currie is inapt. There are sources profiling Currie - which are interested in her because of her notable position and there are interviews. Nothing like this exists with Fitzgerald. All the sources are there because of the rumour - if it hadn't been for the rumour there would be no sources at all. JF is not notable for here career, because the sources do not note her for her it. Can you provide any source that says otherwise?--Scott Mac (Doc) 07:38, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Not accurate. Multiple of the sources given (such as Parmet's biography of Bush) discuss her independent of the claimed affair. The Time Magazine piece is focusing on her role in running Bush's staff. Moreover, even if her notability came primarily from the accusation of the affair then it would be arguably akin to that of Monica Lewinsky who we do have a separate article on. (Incidentally Better Currie actually came to public attention primarily because of her role in the Lewinsky affair). JoshuaZ (talk) 15:29, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong keep. This is a woman who has multiple references over several decades, for what was an significant and long-lasting series of political positions and roles, and referenced as such in multiple reputable sources dealing with the first Bush era and his career. In and of herself, this is enough for notability for me; for example anyone researching Bush's career (as a president or earlier) will come across her name very quickly. Multiple mentions in reliable sources exist back to at least 1982 (well before any reporting of an alleged affair), and reputable media such as the Times and Time describe her in quotes such as "a dominant figure who has much to say about where Bush goes, what he does and whom he sees" and "You cannot overestimate her influence on Bush". [Cites added to article]. The article was poor in tone, and I've edited it somewhat to fix that. It's missing some information that we should have (family, background, current retirement, etc), but it seems clearly to me to be a notable person.

    Regarding its quality, and any mention of the purported liaison, these are fixable cleanup issues. We don't delete an article on an otherwise notable person for that. In fact since the liaison is treated by good sources such as The Times as being effectively confirmed, which is unusual for a major newspaper of that quality, there is a good case we should not whitewash. It need only be as brief as: "in 1992, and following the Lewinsky scandal, allegations of a prior affair between Bush and Fitzgerald appeared in some major newspapers." End of subject. (Source: "Bush’s relationship with Fitzgerald finally became public during his re-election campaign in 1992" The Times). That is fair, and neutral. If we can find a significant statement by her about the claims, consider noting that too (NPOV) though thats pretty much implied anyway. But either way, the bio itself seems a good keep, and mention of that issue isn't in it at this point. FT2 (Talk | email) 15:18, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • FT2, are you seriously suggesting that Kitty Kelley (who you link to twice above) is "fair, and neutral"? – iridescent 19:52, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep in this form, or similar; she is notable due to her career alone. However, rumors about her &, er, her boss (who is a very notable person) have existed for some time so, as FT2 pointed out, we will need to figure out how to handle them. -- llywrch (talk) 20:01, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep after cleanup by Skomorokh. I see no remaining BLP concerns and the qutotes in Time and the Times are enough to ensure that a well-referenced, albeit stubby, bio belongs here. Any further additions should be made with caution and due respect for NPOV and RS. ThemFromSpace 05:34, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or redirect salient information to George H.W. Bush. I wonder how a person who worked with the U.S. Ambassador to the United Kingdom, and later as a presidential chief of staff, executive assistant and chief lobbyist -- all for the same president -- be completely irrelevant, especially with such sterling references/links? Rumour-mongering can be easily dealt with. [email protected] (talk) 14:21, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Icestorm815 • Talk 19:06, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete - not notable career diplomat and aide to former president GHWB. At most a mention of her in the background sections on the president as an important advisor prior. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 19:31, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: No matter which version I look at, I see a non-notable diplomat. Law type! snype? 19:39, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete
  1. She is notable only in terms of her dealings with George Bush, not on her own.
  2. The edit history of this article still contains WP:BLP vios. This article came about due to an alleged (and denied) affair with Bush, and most of the edits have been about this. If there was just a few spurious edis then fine, but not virtually the whole edit history.
  3. The major reference used five times in the (current) article concentrates on alleged wrong doings, emphasising this reference is almost like writing the article about the alleged affair, which is why it was listed for AfD in the first place. Martin451 (talk) 20:17, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I do not see any reason for an article on this person whatsoever!---I'm Spartacus! NO! I'm Spartacus! 20:35, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I'm afraid my original position still stands. This woman may or may not have had an affair with GHWB. If there was any solid proof, she'd be notable, but as it was she had an unremarkable career- we can't have every White House aide and his dog with an article. I disagree with a lot of WP:N, but we have to draw the line somewhere. HJMitchell You rang? 22:57, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. My opinion hasn't changed, and I can't understand why this AfD has been re-opened. --Malleus Fatuorum 23:02, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Jennifer_Fitzgerald&oldid=1140139087"