Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Liza Wright
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 ~ trialsanderrors 01:57, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Liza Wright[edit]
Previously prodded. I really don't see how this meets WP:BIO. Notability by association just doesn't do it for me. Delete GringoInChile 16:46, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Senior official in White House, responsible for finding people to be nominated or appointed by the president. References demonstrate notability. Don't be misled by the "assistant" title: She has a lot of authority (and can do a lot of damage if she makes a bad recommendation). --TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 17:09, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Seems pretty important to me, too. If she doesn't meet WP:BIO specifically, the whole "just because they don't meet the specifications doesn't mean they should be deleted" clause certainly would apply here. --badlydrawnjeff talk 17:23, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Ah, more empty handwaving. You see, if you're going to argue for an exception to ordinary standards, you have to actually explain WHY, as opposed to saying "just because!". --Calton | Talk 23:55, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I'll take your general concern into consideration. --badlydrawnjeff talk 01:06, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep IMHO, the article needs expanding, not deleting. Kathy A. 17:46, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. This position sounds like a routine mid-level bureaucrat, not a notable policy position. The only sources are press releases and some sort of blog or advocacy site, not the multiple non-trivial independent coverage we associate with notability. --MCB 18:37, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I cannot find other biographies of previous "Special Assistants to the President for Presidential Personnel," and I don't see how likely this is to be expanded upon. If her role is so minor that I doesn't warrant its own article, I fail to see how she deserves one. Salad Days 18:42, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The screenwriter for one of the highest grossing films if the 1940s didn't have an article until about a month ago, either. Just because her position is redlinked has nothing to do with its importance. --badlydrawnjeff talk 18:51, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete It does fail WP:BIO on at least 3 points. The women is in HR and has nothing notable about her. scope_creep 19:00, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Yes she has a big job, but I cannot find a mention of her in any media. The closest thing I can find to a critical commentary on her is at www.politicalchicks.com. Not notable, despite position. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 19:26, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. One of the legions of paper-shufflers in the bowels of the West Wing. Not notable, period/full-stop, and certainly NOT because of the position. I see that the big sources here are two White House press releases -- VERY reliable source there -- a university interview, and "politicalchicks.com". Unless she gets into the news because someone she hired spikes the President's coffee and she gets blamed for it, uh uh. --Calton | Talk 23:48, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. I thought about this one overnight, and it just isn't a big public-facing role. If somebody turned up some connection to K Street (and I have no doubt they exist) or Abramoff, that would be one thing, but there are hundreds of people working in the EOB who have enormous influence on one thing or another but are not individually notable. Wikipedia is not a government directory. --Dhartung | Talk 03:40, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep An executive recuiter working for the head of an average company wouldn't be notable, but she does this for the most powerful person on earth. --Oakshade 04:59, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. I agree her role is important but she is not notable. Trying to squeeze her in through WP:BIO under the news coverage rule fails for the reasons already given above. She does not qualify under any other rule I can see. Ohconfucius 08:48, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- In fact, trying to search for her in Google News comes up with Zero hits, so she doesn't even get media coverage appart from those select press releases from the White House. GringoInChile 09:35, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Yes its an important job. But she isn't a notable person. Lots of people work in the White House and do important things but they shouldn't have articles either. Montco 21:17, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep The position is significant. The appointees have been both important and, in some cases, politically controversial. The public needs to know more about how the American executive branch works, not less.
- Delete - lets think of 100 year test, never mind that, lets try the 10 year test - If we had comparable verifiable information on a person from 10 years ago, would anyone without a direct connection to the individual find the article useful today? - i think not --Xorkl000 10:38, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep More light is needed. The position and the person in the position are certainly notable. WVhybrid 04:59, 14 November 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.