Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Elisabeth Hagen

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 Deleted - CSD G5 - Created by a banned user. Codf1977 (talk) 19:11, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Elisabeth Hagen[edit]

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

While Cabinet-level appointees are always notable given the position, IMO this does not extend to minor/subordinate positions. All this woman is in the news for at the moment is that she's in position via recess appointment, which isn't even controversial or notable itself. Of the predecessors listed at Under Secretary of Agriculture for Food Safety that have wiki atricles, Richard Allen Raymond is a bit iffy and may need an AfD, but Elsa Murano was also the president of Texas A&M, so her notability is independent of this position. So, delete this for simple WP:BLP1E; her name appears in reliable sources, yes, but only for being a recess appointment. Tarc (talk) 12:49, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep and stop violating wp:before and stalking my contributions to harass me. Most of your edits relate to me in some way. All you have to do is conduct a google news search to see that there are lots and lots of articles covering this person very substantially. Feel free to add an {{expand}} tag to the article if it makes you feel better. Freakshownerd (talk) 14:14, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Lots and lots" mention her being a recess appointment, yes. I'm sure you're familiar with WP:BLP1E given your long editing history. Unless you are contesting this on grounds that her new position itself confers notability? It'd help to make your response more clear, and indicate on what policy/guideline grounds you feel this person is notable. Tarc (talk) 14:43, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This [1] is one of the MANY reliable sources discussing her work and the appointment in great detail. Please cease stalking me and harassing me and find other areas of the encyclopedia to work in. Freakshownerd (talk) 15:21, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This will be my last attempt, as it's about time to sit back and let others weigh in. You have pointed to an article discussing her being appointed to this position. Great. Are you asserting that the position is notable? If so, I have my doubts on that, per WP:POLITICIAN. If you are asserting she's notable simply for being a recess appointee, then I don't buy that at all, per WP:BLP1E. As to the other accusations, can we leave them out of an AfD, please? Take it up in the appropriate venue if you really feel strongly about it. Tarc (talk) 15:28, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:12, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I am not sure where I draw the line in the chain of command, but an Under Secretary seems notable enough. Everard Proudfoot (talk) 23:54, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. GNews indicates sustained coverage. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 00:30, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Evidence? The subject's name is not unique, and when I look in GNews I see coverage of this Elizabeth Hagen only in relation to the appointment itself. Rd232 ^talk 17:33, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - clear BLP1E. Rd232 ^talk 17:33, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep I think there's a very good case for adding the WP:BLP1E of her appointment with the possible notability of the position. If the position is notable enough for the President to expend a recess appointment on it, maybe in context, it is an important enough position so that its holder deserves an article. I'd be comfortable with saying that most oofices that the president is willing to make recess appoitnments to suggest that they have greater contextual importance than other, similarly ranked office in the executive branch. and needless to say, considering the appointment, she will be a likely search term. Vartanza (talk) 22:50, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Disagree - recess appointments are not that special. Either the position is enough to confer notability, or it isn't. Rd232 ^talk 17:49, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment this should be eligible for a speedy G5 now (creation by a blocked user in violation of block), as Freakshownerd has been blocked as a sock of ChildofMidnight. Tarc (talk) 18:07, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tagged as such. Codf1977 (talk) 18:54, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Concur. It's eligible for G5 and I see no reason to save it. Rd232 ^talk 19:04, 27 August 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.