Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Melissa McEwan

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. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 01:17, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Melissa McEwan

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A small stub article about a short-lived staffer/blogger hired by John Edwards. She was forced to resign and dropped from view. Basically WP:BLP1E with no sustained notability whatsoever. The article basically exists to detail her fall from grace and resignation and there's little else there. Furthermore - and this really annoys me, the article had remained in a vandalized state for two months before being reverted!!. NN-BIO, BLP1E, WP:UNDUE, crappy stub article, needs to be nuked from the air Alison ^❤ 07:35, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. —Alison ^❤ 07:46, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This AfD is being debated by editors in an external forum

Delete ... per my own nom! - Alison ^❤ 07:35, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not enough coverage to write anything like a neutral biography. Kevin (talk) 10:18, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: While this seems sketchy and probably not enough for a BLP, I would mention that "neutral" doesn't mean positive and in fact it is defined by the coverage so I'm not sure how you can catagorize coverage as "unfair" for the sake of making a wikipedia article. That is, we are supposed to document the coverage not pass judgement. But, in any case, I'm not sure that everyone considers "anti-Catholic" to be a slur or insult but we can't care and even being fired ( "Hitler fired me in 2 days after I said blah blah blah ") is not uniformly derogatory. Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 12:34, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's why we have policies like WP:BIO1E, so that someone's life is not documented on Wikipedia solely in terms of a single incident in which they were involved. In such cases, where the coverage doesn't involve anything except a single event, we shouldn't have a biographical article at all. *** Crotalus *** 15:39, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There is little here to suggest a proper biography could be created. This article focuses more on the blog than the subject. Aiken ♫ 13:15, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (provisional) - a vandalism target isn't in and of itself a reason to delete. But an article that the community can't be bothered to maintain? For two months? That's a reason to delete absent a strong counter. And this person doesn't seem to have the high notability that would lead to a counter. If the blog really remains influential, then perhaps... can we get a more recent cite showing sustained notability than just the 2007 one? Bloggers, if big time enough, are notable, we have an article on Eugene Volokh after all. But not all of them. ++Lar: t/c 14:47, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for the reasons specified in the nomination. The only coverage in reliable sources is the 2007 controversy, and writing a "biography" that's really a record of this controversy is a violation of WP:ONEEVENT, not to mention WP:BLP and our policies on undue weight. That is fundamentally an irreconciliable issue — we cannot write a comprehensive biography because we don't have adequate sources to do so. Also, as noted above, the fact that vandalism remained for two months indicates that no one really cares about this article and that it isn't being properly maintained. *** Crotalus *** 15:36, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per WP:BLP1E. Joe Chill (talk) 18:34, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: (I am sure someone above will be surprised). The vandalism incident, even if absolutely regrettable, is completely irrelevant to the deletion. However being a random blogger passingly cited by newspaper in a larger incident does not warrant a bio. I would say merge to Shakesville (blog) if existing and worthwile, but it is not.--Cycl^opia - ^talk 19:14, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- OMG!! Cyclopia's account's been compromised!!! ^_^ - Alison ^❤ 20:14, 19 October 2009 (UTC) (sorry!!))[reply]
  - A momentary lapse of reason. It won't last long :P --Cycl^opia - ^talk 11:15, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Smile ;) per Cyclopia's compromised account holder - surprised? Man I nearly fell of my chair.--VirtualSteve ^{need admin support?} 21:25, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment She also has a column for The Guardian in Comment is Free. Gruntler (talk) 06:16, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
delete per Cyclopia. It might make sense to write an article focusing on her blog which may be notable in which case some of this material might be useful. But there's so little material here that one might as well start from scratch. JoshuaZ (talk) 23:06, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom, Lord Spongefrog, (I am the Czar of all Russias!) 11:35, 23 October 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.