413:. Although I'm a strong proponent for deletion of marginally notable BLPs, I think military personnel and government employees are the exception, because their work careers are supposed to be open to public scrutiny. The case against Druyun received wide-spread attention in the media, even if the article doesn't currently reflect this, because it was such a blatent and extreme violation of government ethics regulations. Her case is still used in US government ethics training as the primary example of how not to behave in a position of public trust. That being said, I think there is a valid argument that this article should be merged with
523:
I wanted to comment on
Rootology's statement, above ("You may wish to add sourcing then to demonstrate notability before the AFD closes, or else your keep has no standing. The burden is on those wanting to Keep.") I wonder if Rootology's confused about the interplay of
538:
deals with content, and it places a duty on all editors to cut unsourced, negative information about living people from
Knowledge (XXG) on sight. It does not deal with subjects or topics, but the actual text of an
282:
Why would you delete an article about a public person (government employee) who has significant in-depth coverage in multiple independent reliable sources? Clearly notable. Clean it up.
474:
500:
132:
618:. In response to the comment above: the fact that an article is 'more than 50% attack/controversy' doesn't mean it should automatically be deleted; it means it should be
215:
during the discussion. This is edging uncomfortably close to an attack page, and I certainly agree with the nominator, particularly about the BLP concerns. I would add
154:
applies as well. This not a biography in any sense, nor encyclopediac. It's a laundry list of allegations and maybe-crimes. Also, being an executive at a corporations is
414:
622:, where possible, to comply with our neutrality requirements. And in cases of people only notable for negative events, a mostly negative article is appropriate:
348:
You may wish to add sourcing then to demonstrate notability before the AFD closes, or else your keep has no standing. The burden is on those wanting to Keep.
612:- I think there are sufficient references here to demonstrate notability. In particular, the existence of the highly in-depth CBS news article
388:
Thanks, I'll remember that in future deletion discussions when people are screaming "notable" when the subject of the article clearly isn't.
62:
99:
94:
521:
because the article's now better-sourced. The BLP concerns remain, and I think BLP concerns trump notability arguments in this case.
17:
103:
573:
262:
232:
355:
309:
181:
86:
158:
evidence of notability in any way, shape, or form, either. There are thousands of such corporations and divisions. Delete per
654:
36:
598:
653:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
57:
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
590:
639:
602:
580:
512:
489:
464:
447:
430:
397:
367:
339:
321:
291:
269:
239:
193:
68:
594:
485:
550:
167:
151:
616:
568:
508:
443:
393:
335:
287:
257:
227:
549:. It may merit inclusion as part of a different topic, so at least some of the actual text may be
361:
315:
187:
90:
52:
49:
613:
545:
deals with subjects and topics but not content. So if something's not notable, it shouldn't have
535:
525:
216:
635:
481:
330:
Yes, and there are plenty more in major newspapers and media networks if you Google her name.
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
615:
is a strong claim to notability, as is the fact that Donald
Rumsfeld commented on this case
460:
163:
159:
147:
139:
561:
504:
439:
426:
389:
331:
283:
250:
220:
349:
303:
175:
82:
74:
542:
529:
171:
143:
631:
627:
560:
to look for sources, not on the "keep" side alone (nor on the "delete" side alone).—
120:
456:
438:
Although the sources demonstrated sufficient notability, I added a few more.
422:
630:
are pretty negative biogaphies, but nobody argues they should be deleted.
623:
647:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
417:, because her case is completely tied into that topic. So, I'm
146:. Entire notability appears to be tied into one event so
300:
127:
116:
112:
108:
475:
501:list of Living people-related deletion discussions
415:United States Air Force KC-135 replacement effort
39:). No further edits should be made to this page.
657:). No further edits should be made to this page.
8:
591:article is more than 50% attack/controversy
556:In questions of notability the onus is on
469:
142:concerns; does not appear to readily meet
574:
569:
455:. Easily passes notability, in my mind.--
263:
258:
233:
228:
473:: This debate has been included in the
562:
499:: This debate has been included in the
251:
221:
249:Downgrading to weak delete, see below—
18:Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion
7:
150:is a major factor and concern here.
24:
219:to his list of considerations.—
1:
674:
581:00:10, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
513:00:02, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
490:23:18, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
465:22:27, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
448:21:50, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
431:21:24, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
398:21:51, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
368:21:16, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
340:21:13, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
322:21:05, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
292:20:48, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
270:00:10, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
240:20:19, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
194:20:08, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
650:Please do not modify it.
640:21:34, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
603:09:13, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
69:23:39, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
32:Please do not modify it.
593:, even if cited. --
547:a separate article
44:The result was
595:RightCowLeftCoast
515:
492:
478:
272:
213:courtesy blanking
665:
652:
578:
570:
566:
495:
479:
364:
358:
352:
318:
312:
306:
267:
259:
255:
248:
237:
229:
225:
190:
184:
178:
174:considerations.
130:
124:
106:
65:
60:
55:
34:
673:
672:
668:
667:
666:
664:
663:
662:
661:
655:deletion review
648:
577:
362:
356:
350:
316:
310:
304:
266:
236:
188:
182:
176:
126:
97:
81:
78:
63:
58:
53:
37:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
671:
669:
660:
659:
643:
642:
606:
605:
584:
575:
516:
493:
467:
450:
433:
408:
407:
406:
405:
404:
403:
402:
401:
400:
377:
376:
375:
374:
373:
372:
371:
370:
343:
342:
325:
324:
295:
294:
276:
275:
274:
273:
264:
243:
242:
234:
137:
136:
83:Darleen Druyun
77:
75:Darleen Druyun
72:
42:
41:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
670:
658:
656:
651:
645:
644:
641:
637:
633:
629:
628:Bernie Madoff
625:
621:
617:
614:
611:
608:
607:
604:
600:
596:
592:
588:
585:
583:
582:
579:
571:
567:
565:
559:
554:
552:
548:
544:
540:
537:
533:
531:
527:
520:
517:
514:
510:
506:
502:
498:
494:
491:
487:
483:
476:
472:
468:
466:
462:
458:
454:
451:
449:
445:
441:
437:
434:
432:
428:
424:
420:
416:
412:
409:
399:
395:
391:
387:
386:
385:
384:
383:
382:
381:
380:
379:
378:
369:
365:
359:
353:
347:
346:
345:
344:
341:
337:
333:
329:
328:
327:
326:
323:
319:
313:
307:
302:
301:What sources?
299:
298:
297:
296:
293:
289:
285:
281:
278:
277:
271:
268:
260:
256:
254:
247:
246:
245:
244:
241:
238:
230:
226:
224:
218:
214:
211:
209:
204:
202:
201:Strong delete
198:
197:
196:
195:
191:
185:
179:
173:
169:
165:
161:
157:
153:
149:
145:
141:
134:
129:
122:
118:
114:
110:
105:
101:
96:
92:
88:
84:
80:
79:
76:
73:
71:
70:
66:
61:
56:
51:
47:
40:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
649:
646:
619:
609:
586:
563:
557:
555:
551:WP:PRESERVEd
546:
541:
534:
522:
518:
496:
482:TexasAndroid
470:
452:
435:
418:
410:
279:
252:
222:
212:
207:
206:
200:
199:
155:
138:
46:no consensus
45:
43:
31:
28:
519:Weak delete
168:WP:COATRACK
152:WP:COATRACK
564:S Marshall
505:Erwin85Bot
440:Drawn Some
390:Drawn Some
332:Drawn Some
284:Drawn Some
253:S Marshall
223:S Marshall
536:WP:BURDEN
526:WP:BURDEN
351:rootology
305:rootology
217:WP:WEIGHT
205:consider
177:rootology
632:Robofish
620:improved
558:everyone
539:article.
133:View log
624:Ken Lay
436:Comment
419:neutral
411:Comment
100:protect
95:history
50:King of
587:Delete
457:Talain
208:speedy
170:, and
164:WP:NOT
160:WP:BLP
148:WP:BLP
140:WP:BLP
128:delete
104:delete
589:this
423:Cla68
203:, and
131:) – (
121:views
113:watch
109:links
16:<
636:talk
626:and
610:Keep
599:talk
576:Cont
543:WP:N
530:WP:N
528:and
509:talk
503:. --
497:Note
486:talk
471:Note
461:talk
453:Keep
444:talk
427:talk
394:talk
336:talk
288:talk
280:Keep
265:Cont
235:Cont
172:WP:N
144:WP:N
117:logs
91:talk
87:edit
480:--
156:not
638:)
601:)
511:)
488:)
477:.
463:)
446:)
429:)
421:.
396:)
366:)
360:)(
338:)
320:)
314:)(
290:)
210:or
192:)
186:)(
166:,
162:,
119:|
115:|
111:|
107:|
102:|
98:|
93:|
89:|
67:♠
48:.
634:(
597:(
572:/
553:.
532:?
507:(
484:(
459:(
442:(
425:(
392:(
363:T
357:C
354:(
334:(
317:T
311:C
308:(
286:(
261:/
231:/
189:T
183:C
180:(
135:)
125:(
123:)
85:(
64:♣
59:♦
54:♥
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.