Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jocelyn Marcel Keyes

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 of the debate was keep. Mailer Diablo 01:51, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jocelyn_Marcel_Keyes[edit]

Mrs. Keyes does not with for this articles to exist. She is not a public figure and, as such, she has a right to privacy. She has never sought office, nor does she plan to and because of this, she is covered under privacy laws. Sethxy 04:46, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Keep Royboy crashfan 04:53, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Nominator has just made up the supposed "privacy laws," and Keyes is a public figure (an "antiabortion activist," according to the Boston Globe, aside from all the public appearances she made with her husband.). Wikipedia is not censored for the protection of former presidential candidates' wives' sensibilities. Monicasdude 05:38, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, unquestionably notable figure for the incident involving her daughter noted in the article. MCB 06:55, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Mrs. Keyes is SOL. ◄ИΞШSΜΛЯΞ ► 07:27, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep per WP:POINT, as I see no legitimate reason for deletion in the nomination beyond so-called right to privacy laws. Would be a keep regardless. She is a public figure. If someone wishes for an article about them not to exist, they should make sure that they don't meet WP:BIO. --Kinu ^t/_c 08:35, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable enough. Speedy keep, if possible. Jud e (talk,contribs,email) 09:11, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: check out the bizarre comment about the soup kitchen. What does having Asian and Indian roots have to do with it? -- Kjkolb 09:31, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I went ahead and removed that comment from the article. Seano1 22:45, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral, don't know if there's enough to avoid a redirect to her husband. Article needs verification, sources. A link to a Boston Globe article about her, for example. But get outta here with the "privacy laws" nonsense. Deizio 16:58, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Wikify --Haham hanuka 19:33, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it, as possibly notable beyond being a candidate's spouse, but nix that "soup kitchen - Indian roots" business. Failing this, merge to husband's article. ProhibitOnions 20:47, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm not sure a person becomes notable just by being married to a notable person, and I am uncomfortable with the idea that she can be made notable by her daughter airing the family dirty laundry in public. My opinion is merge the content but delete, do not keep as a redirect, and must cite sources. Thatcher131 00:36, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep. This is a woman who (at the rock bottom least) acquiesced to the possibility of becoming the First Lady of the United States, for heaven's sake: she has zero basis upon which to hide under a rock now. Nom needs some serious education about the substance of the cited so-called "privacy laws." RGTraynor 19:23, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We don't have an article for Cindy McCain, and the only reason we have this article is because of the allegations made by her daughter. This should be merged to the main Alan Keyes article as her daughter's complaint, even if notable, applies to both parents anyway. Thatcher131 18:47, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As people have been able to logically ascertain, there are no such made up "privacy laws" for this particular situation, btw I'm a lawyer --but none of your lawyers ;-) --Bobak 21:03, 6 April 2006 (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.