Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vera Baker

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 delete. Lack of significant coverage in reliable sources. No prejudice to recreation if she receives such coverage in the future. Shimeru (talk) 07:02, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Vera Baker

[edit]
Vera Baker (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Nominating for deletion on behalf of an IP on the talk page. I personally have no opinion at this time whether the article should be deleted or not.

"There are three major bio points listed in the article:

1) She cofounded a fundraising group - Her cofounder Wambu does not find himself/herself (I don't know what gender the first name indicates) with a wikipedia page, and indeed can barely be found even by a Google search.

2) She was a finance director for a senate race. Not many of those are on Wikipedia.

3) She was DSCC Deputy Political Director - Current DSCC Political Director Jeremy John does not find himself with a wikipedia page.

Furthermore, the page was created just six months ago, in September 2009, 4 years after she had some chance at being relevant for non-scandal related reasons.

I'm not well versed in the technicals of wikipedia rules, but none of this seems like earth shattering stuff. She's clearly up here in connection with affair rumors." NW (Talk) 18:50, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong Keep. Responding to your point,"the page was created just six months ago, in September 2009, 4 years after she had some chance at being relevant for non-scandal related reasons" -- Monica Lewinsky is relevant only for scandal-related reasons, and no one has ever suggested deleting her article. So let's be consistent here.
  • Delete. It appears that the only potentially notable claim about the subject is something which, if it is untrue, would be libelous, and which doesn't actually appear in the article now. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 19:40, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete with no prejudice against recreation if the rumors prove to be true.--Unionhawk Talk E-mail 19:50, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I'm unsure as to how to handle discussing the allegations the Enquirer makes within the article, but I can say that reason 2) for deleting the page, at least, doesn't work. Not many finance directors for US Senate campaigns may be on Wikipedia, but how many of them worked on a campaign for a man who four years later would become President of the United States? The page existed before the Enquirer allegations and the AFD now looks, for better or for worse, like blatant vengefulness. We should be mindful of what happened the last time Wikidenizens tried to keep a famous politician's peccadilloes (that the Enquirer first broke) out of Wikipedia. YLee (talk) 19:51, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Ylee, and the fact that this just isn't going to die, and wishing it away won't make it happen. It will be kept like other people in similar circumstances, such that the best thing we can do is keep it around and make sure what's there complies with BLP. Jclemens (talk) 19:54, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:48, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Leaning towards keep as it looks like more reliable media is starting to report on this. I am not sure if [1] is considered reliable enough and seems a little tabloid-ish, but I think we're getting warmer ... –MuZemike 20:54, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I thought I would have seen more in short order, but I am not. Then again, it doesn't help with the oil spill getting all the coverage right now. No comment right now, but if nothing reliable comes up, then I may have to support deletion here. –MuZemike 23:13, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As the article notes, she's a rarity in political fundraising circles, and was an integral part of President Obama's historic Senate campaign. Quite frankly, I can't see any reason to delete the article other than rank, deplorable racism. The attempt to denigrate her substantial accomplishments is shameful. And I must say -- why does the LOBBYIST Vicki Iseman have her own Wikipedia page, other than to perpetuate the New York Times disgraceful, rumor-mongering attack on McCain the moment he secured the nomination? Her career is far less notable than Baker's. If you don't like the rumors about Baker, then just protect the page, but don't disrepect the woman.TruthfulPerson (talk) 21:25, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - take a look at WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. I highly doubt allegations of racism - if Vera was, say, white, and her article was nominated for deletion (assume everything else about her is the same), I am positive this claim would not have arisen. Furthermore, having an article on Wikipedia or not does not respect or disrespect a person. Airplaneman ✈ 22:50, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS says the argument I made is valid. What is very clear is that Vera Baker has impeccable (even historic!) credentials, and the only reason given for deletion is a scurrilous, racist rumor. Conversely, Iseman's credentials as a dime-a-dozen lobbyist are laughable, and that only reason she was given a page was because of an (imaginary) affair. And yes, it is highly disrespectful to delete a person's Wikipedia page full of accomplishments merely because of a nasty, racist rumor. TruthfulPerson (talk) 23:08, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep on the grounds that she was a major contributor to Obama's fundraising/campaigning. I think this article needs more than just a few days of protection, but I guess we'll see how it goes... Airplaneman ✈ 22:47, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(Note: Not registered; No other edits. -X) Keep She's notable enough, and I agree with others that the subject for deletion wouldn't exist without an unfounded rumor that some find impolitic. In fact, I hope some interested observer is collecting information so the article can be expanded on in the future. 72.251.35.10 (talk) 00:14, 2 May 2010 (UTC)hitcharide[reply]

Abuse of Process The method used to deal with current event problem by NuclearWarefare NW is an embarrassment. The merits of the story itself have ample questions. See: http://mediamatters.org/blog/201005010006. But to lock down the article without any discussion in TALK preceding, then to ask for the article to be deleted is more commentary on the matter than anything. Some does a Google on the name in the news, sees a Wikipedia entry, then see that the article does not make any mention of the news, but shows the article has just been locked down, and then the entire article is being asked to be deleted. Those events sent a clear message to the reader.

I suggest. The article be removed from a request for deletion. That the article make a brief mention of what is going on. Then to have the article locked down for two weeks.

The sentence could be. " On May 1, 2010 the National Enquirer tabloid ran an unsourced a story about an alleged 2004 affair with Barack Obama. --- Locking it down for two weeks from there does not leave the innuendo that this is being rapidly swept under the rug. Lastly she is a political fundraiser by profession, so this type of story is part of the politics that she is expected to deal with...this is politics.

Nuclearwarfare went off half-cocked, which given his alias is the last thing we need. --Tombaker321 (talk) 01:50, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Please respond to the above at Talk:Vera Baker#Abuse of Process. Airplaneman ✈ 02:16, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Per WP:BLP, badly sourced scandal-mongering needs to stay off this article, but without that what do we have? An article in Politico with a paragraph about her consulting firm (not actually about her personally), another reliably published article that mentions her only trivially, and a purported screenshot of uncertain provenance showing her bio from her consulting web site. That's not good enough, and the present situation makes it very difficult to make any improvements. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:32, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Let's avoid silly, conspiratorial references to things like the "purported screenshot of uncertain provenance." The provenance of Cape Caribbean's webpage is perfectly well documented -- Ms. Baker created it herself, and it quite proudly displayed on it her role in Obama's Senate campaign until the website suddenly disappeared in the midst of the 2008 election. Do you seriously contend that somebody other than Ms. Baker manufactured the webpage? If so, that would be an incredibly important political story. Also, did somebody fake the registration of Cape Caribbean with the Florida Secretary of State -- is that why that reference was deleted from this article? That would be an important story too -- someone breaking into the Florida Secretary of States' websites and planting a registration identifying Ms. Baker as a principal of the company.TruthfulPerson (talk) 18:53, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This reliable source spoke to Vera Baker on the matter http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1076695/Obama-hit-affair-smears-following-claims-attractive-aide-banned-wife.html Proper commentary can be made to this entry without any BLP issues. Certainly without the need to delete the whole thing. --Tombaker321 (talk) 04:14, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Her name isn't even mentioned in the article (published in October 2008). It would be original research to infer. Airplaneman ✈ 04:21, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not only is the point above true, but The Daily Mail is not a reliable source, it's a tabloid who has a record of being sued for printing false material. DD2K (talk) 18:38, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete; WP:BLP concerns amock. And Tombaker321, the day a useless tabloid such as the daily mail is considered a reliable source, I print off a hard copy of the wiki and eat it. We're talking a paper which earlier today claimed that the tories wanted a 19.5% VAT hike - before almost immediately retracting the claims after finding out they were unfounded. Tabloid newspapers that specialise in shock news and celebrity gossip are not of the standard we require of reliable sources, particularly around BLPs. Ironholds (talk) 05:26, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - absent the speculative accusations of adultery, which we clearly cannot include at this point, there is nothing to suggest she would pass WP:N. Even though the material that remains about her is uncontroversial the article simply doesn't stand on its own. I could find no substantial sourcing about her and don't see that any has been presented, only passing mentions. This would be a reasonable candidate for deletion even without the latest gossip, although that is probably what brought it to the community's attention now. - Wikidemon (talk) 12:44, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Non-notable individual. I searched around for substantiated material that would establish her notability, but I found none. Perhaps her notability will rise to Wikipedia standards in the future. Xenophrenic (talk) 18:05, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Non-notable person who is only mentioned because of tabloid media that are definitely not reliable sources. DD2K (talk) 18:35, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete: inherent BLP concerns, borderline A7. Sceptre (talk) 21:04, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. Also agree that "the subject for deletion wouldn't exist without an unfounded rumor that some find impolitic."Ewick12 (talk) 00:31, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Could you provide a valid rationale? Criticising the decision to AfD this article is not the same as showing that it shouldn't be deleted. Ironholds (talk) 05:16, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(Note: Already voted as TruthfulPerson above -X) Strong Keep. She is HIGHLY NOTABLE --currently, Ms. Baker (now Baker-Merlini) is Chief of Staff to President Obama's Senate Successor, Roland Burris:

http://www.chicagomag.com/Chicago-Magazine/May-2009/Burris-rsquos-People/

It should also be added that she was Legislative Assistant to Rep. Barbara Lee (D-Cal), Chair of the Congressional Black Caucus.

In short, there is no conceivable justification (other than racism) for denying this accomplished woman a biography on Wikipedia.TruthfulPerson (talk) 05:10, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • 1) being chief of staff to a senator is not, on its own, something that qualifies as a notable position under say, WP:POLITICIAN. 2) please avoid personal attacks such as accusations of racism. Can you provide a single shred of evidence showing racial intent; a single comment that brings that possibility into play? I think not, because I doubt it's a factor for any of us. If Baker was white, we'd be coming up with the same rationales. The fact that you have to resort to accusations of racism indicates exactly how weak your argument is. Ironholds (talk) 05:14, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ironholds, itt's perfectly acceptable to identify motives in connection with a deletion debate. Indeed, the first reason offered for deleting this article was the alleged motive of the author for posting it six months ago, even though there was no evidence of that.  Rather, under Occams Razor, the presumption was that in the absence of any other reason, a bad reason must be assumed.
  • So don't be so quick to level the personal attack charge.  I certainly am not, because I understand that many forms of racism are subconscious and therefore not morally culpable.  For example, many people don't understand the racism of arguments such as "she wouldn't have an entry if she were white.". I distinctly recall former VO candidate Geraldine Ferraro saying that Barack Obama was so unnotable that he would never have been nominated if he was white, and she was rightly criticized for it.  It's akin to "some of my best friends are Black" on the racism color.
  • Likewise, the Wikipedia articles on the Tea Party movement are rife with accusations of racism even though no particular racist individual has ever been identified.  Again, the charge is legitimate even in the absence of reliable sourcing because no counter-reason for opposing the President's policies has been offered by the movement, other than the unspoken fear that a Black man has been elected.  Same, too, with the debates over Obama's citizenship -- even though various documentary issues regarding the "certification" and "certificate" are raised, Wikipedia editors correctly identify racism as the underlying motivation.
"...even though no particular racist individual has ever been identified"? I laughed. Sonny Thomas was never identified; organizer Dale Robertson was never kicked out of the Houston Tea Party rally because of his "n-word" sign; half a dozen eyewitnesses never heard a racial slur this past March 20; right. It never happened - there is no proof. It never happened - there is no proof. It never ... Xenophrenic (talk) 19:36, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • With respect to Ms. Baker-Merlini, all I see are rather comical dismissals of everything this strong woman of color had accomplished.  A strong background in finance -- not good enough.  Financial director of Obama's historic senate campaign -- not good enough. Chief og Staff to Obama's Senate successor -- not good enough.  In a day when several Tiger Woods mistresses have their own Wikipedia entries, it's disgraceful that Baker is denied recognition merely for being accused of the very conduct which forms the sole basis for their inclusion.TruthfulPerson (talk) 12:08, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    You're misunderstanding my point, perhaps deliberately so. I was pointing out that even if she was white, we'd be making the same decision - in response to your claim of racism, saying that skin colour was not an issue here. Identifying race as an issue on my own would raise questions of unconscious or subconscious racism. Since you raised it, I fail to see the issue here. The only person I can see using racial issues as a lever here is you. A strong background in finance is not good enough if not covered by reliable sources. Neither is being Financial Director of a senate campaign. Someone without reliable coverage is non-notable; someone with reliable coverage for one thing (which is what we're discussing here) fails WP:BLP1E. Ironholds (talk) 16:31, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, there should be no hiding. But I am having trouble seeing how this rises above George Bush's homosexual affair with Victor Ashe, another story that skimmed around for awhile but is not to be found on wikipedia.--Milowent (talk) 15:06, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Or how it rises above Vicki Iseman's alleged affair with John McCain, an unsourced allegation which was withdrawn by the (unreliable) New York Times. Yet Ms. Iseman's wholly unremarkably biography remains, even though the rumor was the sole reason for creating the article on 21 February 2008 at 01:24. Does any other lobbyist of Iseman's non-distinction have a Wikipedia bio? I couldn't find one. Also, where is the discussion page for the proposed deletion of that article? The arguments employed in favor of keeping Iseman's bio might certainly prove probative here.TruthfulPerson (talk) 18:53, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, you think the New York Times is unreliable, but the Daily Mail is fine and dandy? Ironholds (talk) 19:22, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - A mere rumor from an unreliable source is no reason to place an article on this otherwise NE person. If and when this story turns out to be true, that's the time to create this article. The fact that the Inquirer has on occassion been (often even then: partially) right, doesn't make them a reliable source. --Whaledad (talk) 15:28, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - There is no mention of anything libellous in the article. It is simply information on someone who is certainly no longer non-notable, regardless of the validity of the claims being made currently. Leave it locked until this "scandal" is proven/disproven. To delete it would in and of itself be showing a bias. It was added 8 months ago, and no one worried about deletion or notability until she became famous? Come on now, ladies/gentlemen... Archon888 (talk) 21:33, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    So you're saying that the current claims are the claim to notability? See WP:BLP1E. And claiming that because nobody nominated it until now, deletion and notability aren't concerns is hooey. Deleting non-notable articles is to show bias; bias towards notability. The counter-article (McCain's alleged partner) was notable without those rumours; Baker is not. Ironholds (talk) 21:57, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"The counter-article (McCain's alleged partner) was notable without those rumours; Baker is not." Rubbish -- the counter-article was indisputable created on 21 February 2008 at 01:24, the moment the lamestream legacy NYT decided to smear McCain with an adultery insinuation as punishment for just having clinched the nomination. (The same New York Times which a few months later had an adult reporter/stalker e-mailing the 16 year old friends of McCain's daughter at their Facebook pages to ostensibly determine "what kind of mother" Cindy McCain was). TruthfulPerson (talk) 12:44, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The reason for the attention on McCain's partner is not the question; it is whether she would have coverage that passes WP:BIO without the attention. A lot of the sources focus on her career, her job; there is coverage of other things. Baker is covered due to the alleged affair, full stop. References for the rest of her career are either a) passing, so not significant or b) not from third-party sources. Ironholds (talk) 16:02, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The article was created by an editor who also created Neo-birtherism, so I doubt its creation was random.--Milowent (talk) 19:07, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The article undoubtedly needs to be improved but I don't think this is any reason to delete it. Vera Baker has become a notable person and hopefully with improvement WP will be able to inform the public about who she is.Onefinalstep (talk) 14:15, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Would you care to link to examples of this notability? Note that coverage in blogs, forums, and tabloids about affair innuendo is not on the table. Tarc (talk) 14:41, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not interested in debating whether the scandal story should be on the page. That argument can be had on the articles talk page. I think the question should be: does a person who has over one million hits on google be considered a notable person? I agree that there needs to be more flesh to the article if we are going to keep it w/o the affair stuff. I have a hunch that her biography is possible to find with sources. Perhaps we should be looking for that stuff instead of deleting the article.Onefinalstep (talk) 22:22, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I would imagine that the people voting delete did indeed look. Google results aren't everything, after all. Did you happen to find any reliable sources that indicate notability in your research? NW (Talk) 23:34, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I haven't researched.Onefinalstep (talk) 01:22, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    So you haven't researched, and google hits don't mean anything. Have you read WP:BLP1E? Ironholds (talk) 02:02, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    No I haven't. And given that this article has been up for six months before all this scandal stuff hit the fan I would say that she is notable for more than one reason.Onefinalstep (talk) 09:25, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Really? Prove it. Find coverage that would pass WP:BIO if it wasn't for this scandal. Having an article beforehand does not mean that the article beforehand passed our notability guidelines - it isn't evidence of importance, it's evidence of editing. Ironholds (talk) 10:29, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- The Vera Baker/Obama discussion, judging by the persistence of other kinds of scandal rumors and stories about any major political figure, is not going away-- I looked her up tonight because of a mention in the Atlantic Monthly's website's front page. Article could be improved. There should be some neutral mention in the article of the main reason her name is being searched for. Evangeline (talk) 02:55, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- Appears notable and documented with reliable sources. The article predates the alleged scandal. I agree that the scandal shouldn't be mentioned unless reliable sources can be found to support it-- strong BLP issue there. However, if you ignore the scandal (which I am) she's notable in and of herself. Wellspring (talk) 03:11, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Several people have said "she's notable" but fail to show exactly how; we're getting quite a glut of these vapid keep votes. Back it up; show us a reliable source that gives significant coverage to this person, not something that mentions her in passing as part of a larger story on campaign fund-raising. Tarc (talk) 12:46, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete; notability has not been reliably shown. DS (talk) 19:32, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per the lack of sufficient coverage in reliable sources. None of the reliable sources I have reviewed covers the subject in the depth necessary to pass Wikipedia:Notability (biographies). Cunard (talk) 22:40, 7 May 2010 (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/Vera_Baker&oldid=1068834806"