Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kate Garvey

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 no consensus. I realize this is an unusually controversial deletion discussion, so I'll explain my reasoning in more detail than I usually do. This close does not reflect my personal belief about the notability of the subject, nor should it. As the closer of an Afd, my role is to judge whether the community has reached a consensus in their discussion, and what that consensus is.

Afd is not a vote, but it is helpful to consider what portion of the community is taking each position. About 25 users supported keeping the article, while around 30 supported deletion, and a few proposed merging and redirection to Jimbo Wales. Overall, the community is fairly evenly split about this case, which is unusual for a deletion discussion of this size. This does not necessarily mean that there is no consensus, because per our established guidelines, strength of argument is more important than strength of numbers.

Examining the arguments, on one hand, those advocating deletion correctly point out that notability is not inherited from having a famous spouse. They also argue that she has only received significant coverage for one event. Those advocating keeping the article dispute the latter claim, claiming that she has received enough coverage for her political and public relations activities to demonstrate notability. The key issue here seems to be whether this coverage is significant, and reasonable arguments about this have been made by both sides in roughly equal numbers. Whether coverage is significant enough to demonstrate notability is difficult to objectively prove, and we rely on community members to make judgment calls on the issue. I feel that no consensus has been reached in this situation, and as such I will not delete the article. This close does not mean that the article has to remain, however, the community can begin a new discussion at any time about whether to merge and redirect this. If anyone has complaints about this close, please come to my talk page and I'll be glad to discuss it further. Mark Arsten (talk) 22:36, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kate Garvey[edit]

Kate Garvey (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Classic BLP1E. Famous only for being married to our co-founder and notability can't be inherited. Absent that, there is no claim for separate notability and what little there is here can be perfectly well carried in Jimbo's article. Spartaz Humbug! 14:10, 27 June 2013 (UTC) (edited to add I'd also be fine with a redirect if there was no consensus to delete. Spartaz Humbug! 15:04, 27 June 2013 (UTC))[reply]

  • Delete. I can see no particular reason why a director of Freud Communications and former diary secretary of Tony Blair should merit an article under Wikipedia:Notability (people) guidelines. As it presently stands, the article seems more concerned to discuss her marriage to Jimmy Wales than anything of relevance to her own notability. A simple search reveals that Garvey has attracted only limited comment other than in relation to her recent marriage, and since, as the creator of this article is no doubt aware, and as Spartaz above makes clear, notability is not inherited - or passed on via marriage - I suggest the article be deleted. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:17, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - fails WP:GNG - hasn't been the subject of significant coverage in reliable sources. A few name-checks in relation to previous role in 10 Downing Street and her marriage to Wales but nothing substantial. Hack (talk) 14:21, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Marriage to a notable person does not confer separate notability. Anything relevant about this person would belong in the Jimmy Wales article alone. Collect (talk) 14:24, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • This article was, of course, created in response to this piece from the New York Times Magazine. Redirect to Jimmy Wales#Personal life. --MZMcBride (talk) 14:30, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect - a POINTy creation (editor should know better by now!), this person fails WP:GNG and WP:NOTINHERITED, no evidence of independent notability, agree with MZMcBride's suggestion to redirect. GiantSnowman 14:31, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep from the NYT's article, "The following year at Davos, Wales and Garvey were both named “Young Global Leaders.” Seems notable enough. Who goes to Davos that is not notable, let alone being honored there? User:Fred Bauder Talk 14:33, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Um, if it is notable, where is the evidence that it was noted? Can you cite a source from that year (2007) that mentions Garvey being named as one of the 250 [1] 'leaders'? AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:59, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect. This should probably be a redirect, as per the above - either to the company or to Mr. Wales. See also the usual caveats, however - it is entirely possible that she will be involved in a venture that makes her more notable than she is at present, and then we're gonna want an article. Honestly, I think the notability is just barely enough to justify a keep, but that a redirect is the better option (for now). UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 14:49, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • On further consideration, put me down for Keep. I think a redirect would be a fine option, but the more I look at the subject and the sourcing, I can't help but think that the case for Keeping this article is the stronger one at this point. There are side issues, though - it's distasteful to see it at AFD within hours of creation, despite no attempt at discussing the matter with the author or attempting to fix the problems cited. I also think there are people recommending delete solely because of the identity of the subject's husband. After reading the discussion below, I honestly almost recommended that this be closed as a Trainwreck. It may yet. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 12:16, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect, although I'd be fine with Delete as well. At this point, no notability. Intothatdarkness 14:52, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect, although I too would be fine with Delete as well. --Orange Mike | Talk 15:00, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per above. --Conti|✉ 15:01, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or merge with Jimbo. Gamaliel (talk) 15:06, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - clear example of WP:BLP1E - Alison ❤ 15:10, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Subject of the article does not appear to meet notability guidelines WP:BIO. The article seems have been created to describe her as the wife of Jimmy Wales, so maybe merging some of the content into the section of his article about his personal life might make sense. Deli nk (talk) 15:13, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I'll just quote Garvey's entry from the World Economic Forum, who named her a "Young Global Leader":

    Kate Garvey is Director of Freud Communications, where she specializes in promoting global campaigns and issues, including the London 2012 Olympic and Paralympic Games, Product (RED), Live Earth, tcktcktck, 1Goal: Education for All, Gimme Shelter Campaign for UNHCR, and Tony Blair Faith Foundation Maternal Mortality campaign. Previously, she worked for Bob Geldof and Richard Curtis on the Make Poverty History Campaign and Live 8 concerts. Her career began in politics where, from 1997 until 2005, she worked for Tony Blair at 10 Downing Street in the Prime Minister's Private Office. Garvey was responsible for the presentation and planning of the prime minister's events and visits, domestically and abroad, as well as major roles in the 1997 and 2001 general elections and running Tony Blair's election tour in 2005.

Not just Jimbo's wife, apparently... Delicious carbuncle (talk) 15:23, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The claim of BLP1E is utter nonsense because the subject was getting her name in the papers over 10 years ago, before Wikipedia even existed. Some examples of coverage which has nothing to do with Wikipedia.
  • The Economist 2000: "Tony Blair's Diary Secretary, Kate Garvey, is situated close to his office, deliberately to guard his door and keep the diary running to time ..."
  • Daily Telegraph 2010 "Even Kate Garvey, his diary custodian, has been feted because, she ran the diary with a grip of iron and was quite prepared to squeeze the balls very hard indeed of anyone who interfered."
She appears in reference works such as the Civil Service Yearbook and Dod's Parliamentary Companion. If that were all, then we might merge with some article about the Blair government. But her work for Freud since and her marriage to Wales means that merger to a single target doesn't work because there are too many disparate topics. Warden (talk) 15:25, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Because you don't know where to redirect an article is no reason to keep it. GiantSnowman 15:31, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • More nonsense. We don't know why a reader might want information about this person. It is therefore sensible to maintain the page as a hub for all the various contexts and roles this person has had so far. We seem to have ample reliable sources to maintain such a stub and there is no requirement for us to develop this into an extensive rambling essay. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and such works commonly have terse biographical entries for people. Warden (talk) 16:01, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Welcome to the mind of an Article Rescue Squadroner, Snowman. They rarely meet an article that they won't fight tooth and nail for on the most absurd of pretenses. Tarc (talk) 16:06, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think the ARS has anything to do with this. More relevant is that this discussion has been canvassed at Tarc's hangout - Wikipediocracy. Warden (talk) 16:40, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • It has been mentioned at Wikipediocracy, but no canvasing has taken place that I can see.[2] I contribute to the forum there, but disagree with Alison, Scott and Tarc on this issue. -- Hillbillyholiday talk 16:49, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nice evasion attempt there Warden, but I actually saw it first at Jimbo's talk page. Tarc (talk) 17:03, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The biggest canvassing push seems to have been AndytheGrump's posting at the BLP noticeboard, right at the start. Immediately, several BLPN regulars show up to !vote delete (e.g. Hack, Collect and GiantSnowman) and they are still drifting in (e.g. Turelio). Warden (talk) 08:32, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ah Warden. Never one to let the facts get in the way of a good argument. I didn't start the BLPN thread: [3]. Not that there was anything wrong with the thread anyway. BLPN is there for a reason. And the original post there was self-evidently correct if you look at the history of the article. AndyTheGrump (talk) 09:24, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The effect was much the same. But user:Y who started that thread seems mysterious. They became an admin here on their first day of editing without an RfA. Curiouser and curiouser... Warden (talk) 09:46, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • ...which has precisely nothing to do with the topic of this discussion. AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:16, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tarc started this line of discussion with the false assertion about the ARS. I don't understand all the Wikipolitics that's really happening here here yet but the more I investigate, the more I find. I've already flushed out one bogus editor (Ann Bardrach) and it certainly seems relevant to proper consideration of the matter that we understand the full background to the comments made. Myself, I have no particular axe to grind pro or con the subject. But I am outraged that that this is being presented as a BLP1E issue when it so clearly isn't. The trouble with your position is that you've rushed into it without checking the facts. Asserting that a person of this stature is not notable is an insult to them and such derogatory claims should not be made so lightly. Warden (talk) 12:41, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Warden, please take your bogus outrage and your tinfoil hat elsewhere. I for one have treated this AfD as any other, and have based my delete !vote on the simple premise that Garvey's career simply hasn't been covered in any substantial depth by sources. She gets the occasional passing mention in articles about other subjects - but so do lots of people. Wikipedia has standards of notability, and despite your routine attempts to bullshit around them, they still apply. And as for your comments about a 'bogus editor', I note that you have not applied the same description to another single-purpose account participating in this AfD - could this be because they !voted 'keep'? AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:54, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not sure who you mean. User:Sep332 was already tagged as an {{spa}} by someone else when I considered them. And 24.151.116.25 seems to have enough history to avoid that canard. Warden (talk) 06:14, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've met them before and I'll meet them again. Absolute stubbornness in the face of clear consensus in direct opposition. GiantSnowman 16:10, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as a POINTy creation and yell at the creator. -- Y not? 15:29, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect Outside of the context of her relationship with Jimmy Wales, coverage in secondary sources is relatively minimal. The Economist article linked above is really just a brief mention. GabrielF (talk) 15:43, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - This shouldn't even be a discussion, notability is not inherited, as there is nothing this person has done that is notable, apart from being married to someone semi-famous. A "diary secretary", whatever the hell that is, to a Prime Minister would never come within spitting distance of article-worthiness, so the claim of prior significant overage is utter garbage. Tarc (talk) 16:06, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Falkender is notable for others things, such as the lawsuit coverage and a peerage. Haven't looked at Colville yet, but I won't be surprised to find the same. Nice try, but as always, a fail. Tarc (talk) 17:51, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm assuming you mean Jock Colville who is notable for publishing his accounts of his time with Winston Churchill. Its not a fair comparison. GabrielF (talk) 18:24, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Colville was secretary to a famous prime minister and went on to do more afterwards. Kate Garvey is just the same and so merits inclusion. For an example of a secretary who did not work for a major leader and did not have a significant life afterwards, see an article created by GabrielF: Barbara Robbins. She was a secretary who had no especially prominent position but just got KIA in Vietnam. Please explain why it's ok for GabrielF to create such an article about a secretary but not for other editors to write about even more prominent examples. Such inconsistency suggests that the real agenda here is to attack Jimbo. One sees it said openly on Wikipediocracy that editors like Russavia and Fram are now queuing up to have a go at Jimbo. What is going on? Warden (talk) 23:56, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The comparisons that you're making are not reasonable. Barbara Robbins was the first American woman to die in the Vietnam War, the first female CIA employee to die in the service and the youngest CIA employee to die in the service. There are sources about her written 40+ years later. GabrielF (talk) 01:18, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do we have an article about the first Vietnamese woman to be blown up by a bomb? It seems that what matters for notability is being American. Not even marrying an American is enough, no matter how important your previous role. You're just the American's wife now, right? Warden (talk) 07:47, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The position as Diary Secretary is notable, see:
"While the job was conceived as clerical, in practice and particularly since the appointment became political, the Diary Secretary has come to accumulate considerable potential authority, balancing the complicated demands and pressures on the Prime Minister's time. Tony Blair's Diary Secretary, Kate Garvey, is situated close to his office, deliberately to guard his door.."
The Powers Behind the Prime Minister: The Hidden Influence of Number Ten. p. 1987. -- Hillbillyholiday talk 16:38, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Further notability:
"Go and buy ice cream from that van there, one for you, one for Gordon, to show togetherness and being normal," Blair was instructed by an aide Kate Garvey, who pointed him in the direction of Mr Whippy.
"No," Blair protested, "It's absurd...we're two guys in suits, one is the prime minister, the other Chancellor of the Exchequer. What's normal about it?"
"Just do it," Kate Garvey said menacingly.
Blair, of course, did as he was instructed.
Lessons from the Top: How successful leaders tell stories to get ahead - and stay there. -- Hillbillyholiday talk 19:07, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"For me, New Labour died when Tony bought Gordon an ice cream in 2005." -- Hillbillyholiday talk 23:27, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Being Tony Blair's diary secretary gets her across the line without even considering the liaison with Jimbo.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:41, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Warden addresses much of that point, see above. Also, I have it on divine and royal authority that she is the most connected woman in London.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:10, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
From Private Secretary, "Depending upon the seniority of their political principal, a Private Secretary may him or herself be regarded as an important official in their own right; the Queen's Private Secretary and the Downing Street Private Secretary being the most important." User:Fred Bauder Talk 18:19, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Private Secretary is usually the head of a private office. There would probably be over a dozen people in the private office. Diary secretary is much lower down the totem pole and would be junior to assistant private secretaries and their ilk. As a political appointee Garevy would have more status than usual but I doubt very much that she could be classed as anything other then a spad. That's just not notable in itself without substantial coverage - which is lacking. Odd sentences here and there don't add up to meeting the GNG. I'm sure Garvey was a significant figure in Blair's support team but that does not = notable by our standards. Spartaz Humbug! 04:45, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Spartaz's notability standards don't seem so high in other cases such as Maureen Barton-Chitty - a BLP which they created recently and for which few detailed sources seem available. Warden (talk) 10:54, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm sorry, I'll be with you once I get my head around the concept of a prime minister who isn't famous. Perhaps Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman or the Marquess of Bute? Neither of whom the erstwhile Miss Garvey worked for, but rather Mr. Blair, who remains rather well-known in his own right.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:15, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, doesn't seem to be particularly notable at present. — Scott • talk 16:49, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"Seeming" notable assumes a subjective judgement on merit; notability in WP terms is an objective process involving demonstrating the existence of multiple independently-published instances of coverage dealing with the subject of the article in a substantial and presumably accurate way. Carrite (talk) 17:11, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Mmm... repeating the exact same thing that I was saying, only in many more words, in an attempt to spin it into something different? That doesn't seem like you, Tim. I'm disappointed. — Scott • talk 17:25, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Disappointed?!? Hmmmm. Well it seems like you're not addressing the sources cited: Guardian, Telegraph, New York Times Magazine.' Feel free. Carrite (talk) 19:06, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - In addition to the sources cited above, Garvey receives substantial coverage in this new piece from the New York Times Magazine — Amy Chozick, "Jimmy Wales is Not an Internet Billionaire." Clear pass of our General Notability Guideline. Additionally, this strikes me as a rather POINTy nomination, I will mention. Carrite (talk) 17:13, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This also seems like fairly significant coverage although I have used up my 10 free articles from the Telegraph this month. Just do a google news archive search. There is more than cursory mention of her, discussing her role at Number Ten and some controversy over how she got her next job. This says she was a special advisor to Blair, who was at the time of writing prime minister. This confirms her role as special advisor. Clear keep.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:21, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In the NYT article, there are two paragraphs devoted to Garvey out of 33 in total (~200 words v ~4500 total), most of which is used to name-drop tangentially related celebrities. That's hardly significant coverage. Hack (talk) 05:20, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You are raising the bar. A paragraph is usually considered sufficient for purposes of counting whether she has received multiple coverage. And I wasn't counting the NYT article anyway, thanks for the addition. The British coverage is far more serious and considerable.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:33, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Trout for the nominator for hauling this piece to AfD only 1 hour and 8 minutes after creation, without any flagging. Utterly bad faith handling of this, no matter what one's opinion is of ultimate notability. That sort of crap should not happen, period. Carrite (talk) 17:25, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh, bullshit. The article was created by a longtime Wikipedia-and-Jimbo-insider who should have known better than to create a puff-piece on an obviously non-notable individual. Tarc (talk) 17:54, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well, Tarc, let's start with the fact that you are complaining about the editor and not the content for starters; that you are wrongly characterizing a biographical stub as a "puff-piece" for secondsies, and making a subjective statement about "non-notability" rather than dealing with cited sources for dessert. But you did get to use the word bullshit, so you probably scored a momentary point with someone who is skimming rather than paying attention to the pointy barf you are ladling... Carrite (talk) 19:01, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You really do your Wikipediocracy handle justice with these sorts of comments. If certain editors would think for half a moment before rushing off to whip out an article for every little thing they see in the news, we'd all have a lot less time wasted at AfD. Tarc (talk) 23:24, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Quite. Ceoil (talk) 12:07, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:BLP1E. Independent notability not established and surely would be if it existed. A redirect to Jimmy's page is probably fine. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | © | WER 18:09, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Not that it is a final decider, but has the subject received considerable media coverage or and articles that can be posted here? --Malerooster (talk) 18:52, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Not in articles which are substantially about her, no, from what I have been able to locate. She gets the odd mention in passing (i.e. single sentences) in relation to her work with Blair and her later PR job, but otherwise, coverage is confined to her marriage to Jimbo. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:56, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I would then lean towards redirect to Jimbo's article, if that's where folks were talking about redirecting to. --Malerooster (talk) 19:17, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • (edit conflict) Merge & Redirect to Jimbo's page. A few mentions in secondary sources but nothing to establish independent notability. Should not be outright deleted as someone may stumble upon it in another subject and redlinks are just no fun for those people. Jguy TalkDone 18:57, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect - I can justify in my mind that she meets at least minimum notability but I think we should merge her articles content into his for now. If it grows to contain enough content to stand on its own then we can split it back out. Kumioko (talk) 19:12, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I think there are plenty of sources cited here to establish that she has been "noted" on her own. Sep332 (talk) 19:26, 27 June 2013 (UTC) — Sep332 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Delete This is not a BLP1E case, in my opinion, because we aren't really talking about a singular event and she seems to be noted for her connection to Blair as much as her connection to Wales. However, she isn't noted much for either. I am not seeing the kind of significant coverage that would merit an independent article. A redirect to Jimbo's page seems undue as she is not known simply for her relationship with him.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 19:50, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I think the sources suggest that she is at least marginally notable. Everyking (talk) 19:52, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As passing WP:BASIC. Links gathered from above entries: [4], [5], [6], [7], [8]. 24.151.116.25 (talk) 21:01, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: If anyone is in doubt about the article's intention, just have a look at the first revision: "Kate Garvey, Jimmy Wales's third wife, according to The New York Times, does not have a Wikipedia page." WTF? --Conti|✉ 21:10, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Why should it matter what the original author's intent was? There is an actual article existing now, and we are only discussing the subject's notability. Everyking (talk) 21:40, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per comment by User:The Devil's Advocate. Peter James (talk) 22:37, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Notability is not inherited, and basing the lead on being someone's Diary Secretary says all that is needed on that. Many of the projects listed in the Career section were worked on by hundreds or even thousands of people—we do not write articles about each individual who worked on a particular campaign. When a politician writes a book, naturally they are going to mention the people in their life—that does not make those people notable. According to the article, Blair thinks a PhD thesis could be written on the "importance of scheduling". That is a throw-away comment on the importance of a function, and says nothing about a particular person. Johnuniq (talk) 23:22, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I checked the references and most of them mention her in the context of being married to Jimbo Wales, not for individual actions or accomplishments. Plus, I think it is harassment on our part to subject Wales' spouse to a WP BLP when Wikipedia is still unable to properly manage or safeguard the content of most BLPs. If Jimmy Wales isn't aware of that, then he needs to get a little more educated on the current state of this project he helped co-found with Larry Sanger. Cla68 (talk) 23:26, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Sep332, there are plenty of sources cited.--eh bien mon prince (talk) 00:32, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not really a BLP1E, since the article subject is not even known for this one "event." This is a more mundane case of horribly failing WP:GNG. The subject has been received non-trivial coverage in reliable sources. Furthermore, it looks as if the article's creator is "Disrupting Wikipedia to Make a point." What point is that? Perhaps he's a Jimbo "groupie," or even worse, a stalker of some sort. Perhaps I will open page 5A of the New York Times tomorrow, randomly point to a column, and write a Wikipedia article for the name closest to where my fingertip ends up, GNG be damned. Ann Bardrach (talk) 00:48, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:30, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:30, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per rationales by The Devil's Advocate and GiantSnowman. --Túrelio (talk) 06:24, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per GiantSnowman. Mr T(Talk?) 08:14, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Passes WP:GNG/WP:BASIC, not a WP:BLP1E (she was notable even before marrying Jimbo, as correctly pointed above), article creator intent is irrelevant. --Cyclopiatalk 09:44, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The references shown by Hillbillyholiday81 as examples of notability show the opposite, that Garvey is mentioned in passing, no more. The other references have the same problem. Not notable enough. Binksternet (talk) 10:06, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Other than bossing the PM and Chancellor about, did you know that Garvey also came up with the Peter Mandelson "Bobby" deception, as mentioned in books by Donal MacIntyre and Cherie Blair?:
"It was Kate Garvey, Tony's diary secretary, who came up with the idea that Peter should have a nom de guerre.."
"..as a way of keeping Mandelson's extensive involvement in the campaign clandestine." -- Hillbillyholiday talk 10:43, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per OP and Giant Snowman. Obvious case of WP:INHERITED and WP:POINT. — Richard BB 11:34, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - WP:INHERITED. Agree with Collect. I'm not impressed by the "but we can" arguments. Ceoil (talk) 12:01, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete, basically per The Devil's Advocate above. This isn't a straightforward case of BLP1E - there's plenty of sources mentioning her in various contexts over the years. However, there's nothing that could be called significant coverage of her, and taking together I don't think it adds up to notability at this time. The claims to notability in the article, once the puffery is ignored, aren't all that remarkable; the only real basis for it here is her links with notable people, and creating an article on such a basis is discouraged by WP:INHERITED. Robofish (talk) 12:29, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment In response to Robofish's comment, someone who knows everybody is notable, which was her work for the prime minister and for Freud. Now the comment, quoted from our policy page, "WP:BLP1E should be applied only to biographies of low-profile individuals." Clearly not the case here. User:Fred Bauder Talk 12:55, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I agree with Hillbillyholiday, mentions of her in books count towards her notability. There are a lot of book results to sort through, but the ones he mentioned seem notable. She gets mentioned in the news also. A lot of the news results are hidden behind paywalls. Did others in her position as Dairy Secretary for the leader of Britain get the coverage she did for that job? While she got a lot of coverage for marrying Wikipedia's founder [9], there were mentions of her in the media before then. Dream Focus 13:32, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm sure the positions are roughly equivalent, but Garvey was the Diary Secretary to the Prime Minister of England, not the Dairy Security to the leader of Britain. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 18:50, 28 June 2013 (UTC) [reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Dream Focus 14:07, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Doesn't look like she satisfies GNG, at least not based on the references in the article. Except for the wedding articles at the bottom of the list, and discounting WEF as a primary source, none of the other articles is about her. Notability is not derived and therefore we shouldn't have an article on Garvey. She definitely does not satisfy the "significant coverage" criterion at WP:GNG. --regentspark (comment) 18:59, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It's WP:BLP1E not WP:BLP4E. Diary Secretary for Tony Blair, director at Freud Communications, 2007 Young Global Leader at World Economic Forum and married to Jimmy Wales. She was responsible for the 1994 Peter Mandelson "Bobby" gambit. CallawayRox (talk) 19:18, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per CallawayRox. I realize this vote is inappropriate, since the way we're supposed to settle these things is to look up the creator, look up the AfDer, speculate on their motives, and make a political decision, but I think the article has enough notable content to make an informative biography of serious educational interest and I don't see why it is all of a sudden bad for us to have those. Wnt (talk) 19:43, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Kinda like what you do every time an editor brings up a valid concern about Commons porn and smut, when you stick up for your Commons cronies, attack the poster, and allege it is all just one big Wikipediocracy setup? What a hypocrite. Tarc (talk) 20:01, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There are no valid concerns about "smut", only unapologetic attitudes of vandalism. Moreover, that has to do with pointing out "canvassing" in a Wiki that foolishly and ineffectively attempts to prohibit it, because it means opinions are unrepresentative. I was not alleging that here (many of us doubtless saw this on Jimbo's page, but I have no idea how that affects our attitudes overall; I don't see any obvious way to tell which way our regard for him is supposed to sway our votes, yet certainly there are some implications along that line above.) Wnt (talk) 20:20, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In that case, there are no valid reasons for retaining this article, just an Old Hand from the Wikipedia olden days writing a puff-piece on Jimbo's behalf, squeezing blood from the stone sources to scrape together a bio for a woman who would otherwise be unknown and unheralded outside of the circles of Brit political wonks. See, this is how you Play the Game, Wnt-Style. Tarc (talk) 20:38, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Say what??? I can respond only that hey, I liked Wikipedia's olden days, and I don't see why the world isn't entitled to know whatever British political wonks know. Wnt (talk) 23:25, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep - The combo of being Blair's secretary and Jimbo's wife strikes me as enough to clear notability guidelines. NickCT (talk) 20:16, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As an afterthought, I'm seeing lots of articles referencing Garvey, both in relation to Wales and Blair. I'm a little more confident in my "keep" vote. NickCT (talk) 20:23, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails WP:GNG, since independent notability hasn't been demonstrated. A redirect would be ok, but not necessary, in my opinion. First Light (talk) 01:23, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There are adequate sources if we want to keep. Since the discussion is, as is often the case, considering other factors than sources, If we judge notability by actual notability of a person in a position, it would be as key personal assistant to a head of government. From Thomas Cromwell's day if not before, such people typically have a very substantial amount of power. DGG ( talk ) 04:44, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep She had a life and a job before marrying Jimbo. A fairly important one. Saying otherwise is like calling her a gold digger.--Auric talk 12:55, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I see no evidence of independent notability. Garion96 (talk) 16:32, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Per CallawayRox. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:51, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect. It is a valid search term, and there is sufficient evidence of light coverage by multiple sources, with figures now approaching the dozens, but the focus of those articles are largely about her spouse where she receives passing coverage in the process. I think the best solution to maintain WP:BLP compliance, and best serve the interests of our readers, the community, and procedures currently in place is a merge and redirect under the current circumstances. AMFMUHFVHF90922 (talk) 20:01, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect where? And how are the sources from before her wedding focused on her spouse?--Wehwalt (talk) 09:38, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Why Jimbo in particular? Why not Prime Ministership of Tony Blair, if a redirect must be done? Because they are married? If you are correct (I don't concede that you are), it should be to where she got the most notoriety, and she certainly got more as a political figure than as Mrs. Benevolent Dictator for Life.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:36, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Because Prime Ministership of Tony Blair does not even mention her name, and I don't see how her position as a diary secretary should deserve to be mentioned there. Cavarrone 10:24, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The insufficiencies of that article should not affect this one. Anyone who can order Tony Blair to get Mr Whippy, and he does, is notable in my book.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:36, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Callaway Rox and DGG. Plenty of substantial mentions in books and press articles published over three decades, covering various aspects of her private and public life. Andreas JN466 23:19, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I completely disagree that notability is not inherited. On the contrary, it is absolutely inherited, i.e. the British Royal Family. What else are they famous for had their fame not been inherited. I find the article on Kate Garvey interesting, worthwhile keeping and so did the NY times in its recent article on her. The fact that she is married to James Wales is relevant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Francisco8104 (talk • contribs) 23:11, 29 June 2013‎ — Francisco8104 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Response. You are right. "Notability" is absolutely inherited: When the "inheritance" comes from membership in the centuries-old reigning royal family of a major World Power. See the distinction here between being a member of the British Royal Family and being married to Jimmy Wales? (nothing personal against Jimbo) The sad part is, you probably don't see the distinction. Step away from the computer for once and get some perspective in life. Ann Bardrach (talk) 00:10, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Kind of harsh, don't you think? AMFMUHFVHF90922 (talk) 02:22, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I feel she's done enough notable things and held enough notable posts to not be a problem under BLP1E. She's the director of Freud Communications. She was Tony Blair's diary secretary, and she's mentioned in his archives. There's no reason for the article not to exist. I mean the only reason this is coming up for discussion is because people think she's being included in wikipedia for no reason other than being Jimbo's wife. That's not the case here. Shashwat986 → talk 08:34, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep, based mostly on her tenure as a powerful Diary Secretary (which is why re-directing to Jimbo is inappropriate). Looking up someone obscure (the WP is littered with obscure sports stars from the 1920s, etc) and drawing a blank is worse than having around some borderline notable entries. WP:PAPER. It is likely true that the article was created in response to that line in the NYT magazine (I had the exact same thought - it's as if the reporter was issuing a challenge), but so what? The question ought to simply be whether or not she's notable. Noel (talk) 13:11, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is true that a diary secretary holds some real power, much like the executive secretary of any powerful figure. However, such power is behind the scenes, not necessarily the subject of significant commentary from observers. The lack of significant coverage of Garvey is what is at issue here, not whether she held a powerful position. Binksternet (talk) 17:21, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Maybe I'm missing something, but this isn't even close IMHO. There is a wealth of notability in the cited articles, long before marrying Jimbo. AND the marriage to Mr. Wales does indeed add to the notability, but it does not create it. Now somebody quick go waste 2 minutes of your life looking up my edit history and making snarky comments😊 TjoeC (talk) 13:20, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep Kate Garvey was the gate keeper, the custodian of the diary......To call it 'being in charge of the diary' is like calling Lennon and McCartney people who wrote songs:........ -Tony Blair [10] page 20.
Per Noel above, redirecting the article to Jimmy Wales would be wrong, when her notability is from her own employment including Freud, not from an WP:INHERITED marriage.Martin451 (talk) 13:42, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Article seems well written enough for me; certainly more detailed than "Jimmy Wales' wife". Virtually all reliable sources, no apparent POV bias as of present. Sorry Spartaz; I think your conception of Kate Gravey was a bit narrow at the time of its creation (when all I presume that you knew of her was the fact Jimbo was her beau and nothing else). While I agree that notability in the Wikipedia-sense isn't inherited by being someone's spouse, if they do enough notable stuff on their own they should be allowed to have an article on Wikipedia as well. Ellomate (talk) 22:51, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: good GNG and sourcing arguments made. Deletes lack rationale. Per NickCT, Warden, Carrite, etc. she has several RSes mentioning her. Also the article has already been expanded significantly, with meaty content. Her notability is not just as a sidekick spouse. It results from several events, perhaps even thematically related:

  • Blair staffer
  • Director of prominent public relations firm
  • World Economic Forum "young leader"
  • Jimbo relationship and marriage

TCO (talk) 23:03, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - Most of those favoring deletion are citing BLP-1E. This doesn't apply here, Garvey already had a legitimate claim to fame prior to her marriage. It's a question of sourcing, and as this article continues to develop, it's pretty clear that sufficient sources are out there for an easy pass of GNG. Carrite (talk) 01:37, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • OK. Yes, they have a rationale stated. Fair enough. Interesting that it was so heavy delete to start (almost a snow) and that with time to look at the content, it is now over 50% keep. Have a couple more sources coming in (pre wedding). But even the wedding clips did not seem like they were "Wales gets married", but more like power couple unites or Wales marries Blair staffer.TCO (talk) 03:46, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Concur. I don't want to go all Jane Austen here but Jimbo definitely married a significant, influential, and well-known figure.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:05, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. If Kate Garvey is famous enough to have been honored at The Davos Economic Forum why does she not deserve a wikipedia entry ?Francisco8104 (talk) 06:47, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. I find it odd that this user's first and only edits have been to Talk:Kate Garvey and this AfD. — Richard BB 07:40, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Four edits, two of them keep !votes on one AfD. !vote struck out.Martin451 (talk) 07:43, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Perhaps their were visiting Wikipedia after reading a news article about her marrying Jimbo Wales, that all in the media. That could've brought them here. Since they didn't know they don't need to say "keep" every time they post something, then they are obviously a new user, and not someone's sockpuppet. Dream Focus 07:48, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Summary of delete arguments so far.: The article subject clearly fails WP:GNG in that it (she) was not the subject of "substantial coverage" in the sources cited. Nobody arguing "keep" has addressed this at all. Sure, Garvey has been tangentially mentioned in these "sources," but not in the manner that satisfies GNG. Ask this simple question: Was Garvey the subject of "significant coverage" in that NYT Magazine piece on Jimbo? (no.)
Until those arguing keep can demonstrate that Garvey received significant non-trivial coverage, this discussion remains clearly to delete. I think the consensus is, however, that this is not a case of BLP1E. Thank you. Ann Bardrach (talk) 23:25, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You still haven't explained your only mainspace edit outside of this topic! -- Hillbillyholiday talk 23:31, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think it is self-explanatory - someone confused their "good hand" and "bad hand" sockpuppets. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 15:37, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Heh heh, well it does get confusing sometimes..! -- Hillbillyholiday talk 15:59, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'm not an insider nor a poster at wikidiocracy, or whatever it's called. But I'm struck, coming upon this AfD by way of reading an entry at BLP/N, by the vehemence of the comments and votes! here, and the utter abandonment of the notion that one should focus on the edits and not the editors. I take no position on the merits, I've got quite enough dramah in my own life, thank you.
    However, I'd like to nominate this discussion, once it's closed, to be the centerpiece of an essay about the worst ways to deal with subjects and topics in which wikipedia itself, and our community's partisans, factions, champions and detractors figure in such a discussion.
    That is, if some lunatic masochist would care to write one. David in DC (talk) 12:46, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Soft Keep & Merge with Jimmy Wales. Per sources, she was a Diary Secretary for Tony Blair - no, doesn't pass GNG yet. Like Ali Hewson, Melinda Gates - suspect this is shifting sand and soon article should be re-created. Just not, per guidelines, there at this moment. EBY (talk) 18:20, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This article [11] says that Jimmy Wales has often described Kate Garvey as "the most connected woman in London." If Jimmy Wales is correct, then Kate Garvey should have a Wikipedia article.
  • Two minor points: anon commenters are discouraged in an AfD. And pulling 'What Would Jimmy Do?' into the debate just adds smoke to David in DC's bonfire. There should be, in my opinion, a Godwin's Law on this very thing.EBY (talk) 18:18, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • When have anon commenters ever been discouraged in AFDs? Only when they disagree with you perhaps? Don't invent new rules out of nowhere. Dream Focus 20:24, 3 July 2013 (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/Kate_Garvey&oldid=1145936990"