Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ashley Estes Kavanaugh

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 keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Luftfall (talk) 09:18, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ashley Estes Kavanaugh[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Person does not appear to be notable. All she did was serve as personal secretary to a past president, and be a wife to a judge (from where I arrived). In my opinion, the article does not fulfill notability guidelines per WP:NBIO. Luftfall (talk) 02:28, 10 July 2018 (UTC) Withdrawn by nominator. due to no support. Closing as speedy keep.[reply]

Keep Per nom, this isn't WP:1E. Also, by WP:POLOUTCOMES, sub-cabinet officials are notable. Davey2116 (talk) 02:46, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep As a secretary to POTUS for three years, that makes her notable. There is a whole category of people who held the same role: Category:Personal secretaries to the President of the United States. --rogerd (talk) 02:49, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 04:00, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 04:00, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I don't mean to go all WP:WAX, but it strikes me of similar importance to Evelyn Lincoln, Grace Tully, etc. The list at the heading Personal secretary to the President shows that most such secretaries have Wikipedia articles. The article should be improved, perhaps; but not deleted. TJRC (talk) 04:13, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep For reasons previously cited here. I, too, feel that this article ought to be developed, enhanced, and thereby improved - perhaps more on her education, her age, her parents and family, and her role during the War on Terror, etc. MaynardClark (talk) 08:36, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep She is now the wife of a US Supreme Court nominee. That is suggestive, but not dispositive—Virginia Thomas and Martin D. Ginsburg have articles; the other spouses of current justices do not as yet. But because this is widely viewed as a highly consequential nomination that will shape the Court for decades, that will be the subject of a confirmation battle, and that will shape the midterm and presidential elections, she is and will likely remain of interest to WP users for decades. Improve, don't delete. Enoent (talk) 11:38, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:28, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Personal secretary to the president is a firly important role. Besides, she passes GNG with more to come probably. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 15:17, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep – I can understand the nomination on the bases of Notability is not inherited. However in this case, we already have numerous in depth coverage by the mass media (i.e. Secondary – Independent – (what many may call) reliable sources on Mrs. Kavanaugh as an individual, separate from her husband. In addition, this coverage is going to grow on an hourly bases because of the nomination of her husband. This more than meets our standards for a standalone article. ShoesssS ^Talk 17:20, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep – It is outrageous to ask for this article to be deleted when Miss Beazley (dog) has a page and nobody requested it to be deleted.173.68.54.189 (talk) 21:07, 10 July 2018 (UTC)MVictory[reply]

Are we discussing Miss Beazley, Miss Beazley (dog), Dubya's celebrated family dog? MaynardClark (talk) 03:11, 11 July 2018 (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.