Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sue Veres Royal

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. -- RoySmith (talk) 03:25, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sue Veres Royal[edit]

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

Classic WP:BLP1E - obscure director of marginally notable charity, tangled up with the Clintons.

The article was created by obvious WP:COI editor, now editing as an IP. This particular article smacks of a WP:COATRACK by the article's creator to perpetuate publicity of her relative's accusations against her former employer - Bethbar5 (talk · contribs) has written numerous articles about Sue Veres Royal's family members including Gregory Charles Royal, George C. Royal ‎and added lots of material to articles affiliated with them. The Dissident Aggressor 06:58, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Happy Hearts Fund as her name is a plausible search term; agree with nom that there is no need to keep per WP:BLP1E. I would have made this same recommendation even without the whistleblower claims. - Location (talk) 10:45, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments about what I may or may not know about Royals is irrelevant to the merits and facts and weight of the listing. If you delete a person majorly sourced as the subject of a topic of national importance for a variety a of obvious reasons , a person who is now - regardless of whether you approve of the source contributor- an important enough figure to meet the historical bar of a wiki entry then delete her with the thousands of other entries which meet an even lesser standard. Lastly the wiki entry is to memorialize the subject not to perpetuate publicity as arguably the New York Times and several other news sources have done that quite capably BethBar5 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bethbar5 (talk • contribs) 21:21, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What I said. The Dissident Aggressor 23:48, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:31, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:31, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per WP:BLP1E. One time thingie. There are spotty references] here. Here's the BLP1E rule...--Tomwsulcer (talk) 00:59, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Being in the news does not in itself mean that someone should be the subject of a Wikipedia article. We should generally avoid having an article on a person when each of three conditions is met: If reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event. If that person otherwise remains, and is likely to remain, a low-profile individual. Biographies in these cases can give undue weight to the event and conflict with neutral point of view. In such cases, it is usually better to merge the information and redirect the person's name to the event article. If the event is not significant or the individual's role was either not substantial or not well documented. John Hinckley, Jr., for example, has a separate article because the single event he was associated with, the Reagan assassination attempt, was significant and his role was both substantial and well documented. The significance of an event or individual is indicated by how persistent the coverage is in reliable sources.
— Wikipedia rule WP:BLP1E. (boldface by tws).

And I don't see the coverage as being persistent.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 00:59, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per BLP1E, event has petered out, as has coverage.... Kraxler (talk) 20:49, 3 July 2015 (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.