225:. Lack of sources that discuss Fitzgerald life. The sources used are about Bush and discuss his relationship to her. This information should be presented in an article about Bush where proper context can be explained. Cobbling together bits of information found in pieces that primarily discuss Bush gives a distorted impression of her. When bits of information are plucked from sources that frame the person in a narrow way, then we are not writing a biography, instead the article is a piece about a sliver of the persons life. In this instance, I see no way that this can be fixed given the available sources. I continue to suggest deletion as the best way to address the undue weight issues.
748:
information not best presented in an article about Bush where proper context can be given? I don't see this article as a biography of her life as written now but rather scraps of material cobbled together that touch on a tiny aspect of the person. It makes no sense to keep articles such as this one when they have known undue weight issues, have the potential to be chronic BLP problems, and are unlikely to ever be a thorough well written entry. It not sensible for
Knowledge (XXG) to continue down the path of presenting information like this article as a stand alone biography when we know that it will keep Knowledge (XXG) from being know as an encyclopedia with high quality articles.
894:. This is a woman who has multiple references over several decades, for what was an significant and long-lasting series of political positions and roles, and referenced as such in multiple reputable sources dealing with the first Bush era and his career. In and of herself, this is enough for notability for me; for example anyone researching Bush's career (as a president or earlier) will come across her name very quickly. Multiple mentions in reliable sources exist back to at least 1982 (well before any reporting of an alleged affair), and reputable media such as the Times and Time describe her in quotes such as
352:" Last week I started trimming some of the oddest stuff. Most of the worst stuff has been removed over the past week by other users attempting to clean it up. But I can't see how it is salvageable since the article is based on sources that are discussing Bush, and mention her in the context of off the record rumors or other gossipy type comments. I can't see how bits of dodgy information like this can be the basis for an encyclopedia article about her.
31:
769:. Though incomplete and likely to improve in the coming week, I believe the current version goes a long way to address early concerns. Early commenters are encouraged to review the latest version of the article and the closing admin is asked to interpret early !votes in the context of the state of the article at the time of commenting. Thanks,
455:) – the only significant one (with the possible exception of the books, but neither look likely to say anything of substance about her) is "Jennifer A. Fitzgerald, technically Bush's assistant for scheduling but in reality a dominant figure who has much to say about where Bush goes, what he does and whom he sees" in
1020:. I wonder how a person who worked with the U.S. Ambassador to the United Kingdom, and later as a presidential chief of staff, executive assistant and chief lobbyist -- all for the same president -- be completely irrelevant, especially with such sterling references/links? Rumour-mongering can be easily dealt with.
209:
I started looking at this last week. From my checking of the content and the sources, the article is not about her. It is about what other people think about her. Many of the people have not spoken on the record about her except to say that there were rumors about her. After looking into the issue,
867:
Not accurate. Multiple of the sources given (such as Parmet's biography of Bush) discuss her independent of the claimed affair. The Time
Magazine piece is focusing on her role in running Bush's staff. Moreover, even if her notability came primarily from the accusation of the affair then it would be
857:
the comparison with Currie is inapt. There are sources profiling Currie - which are interested in her because of her notable position and there are interviews. Nothing like this exists with
Fitzgerald. All the sources are there because of the rumour - if it hadn't been for the rumour there would be
783:
it is still using the same sources that refer to the relationship not the person. So, the concerns are not met for me. This person is not notable, all that is (perhaps) notable is a rumoured and denied affair. That can be recorded on an article on Bush, or the election. We don't have biographies of
834:
Rewritten version is substantially improved and demonstrates her notability. Indeed, the draft I am looking at now makes apparently no mention of the affair accusation (which is almost certainly not good. UNDUE issues are important but if we are going to have this article it should probably get a
747:
How do you suggest that
Knowledge (XXG) editors address the significant undue weight issue with this article since the sources used view her through the narrow spectrum of explaining Bush's relationship with her? Given that there is a scarcity of information that discuss "her" life, why is the
157:
Essentially, this is a woman that was loosely alluded to in a handful of biographical works, and was another person's secretary, who was at one point accused by a handful of people of possibly maybe perhaps having an affair with someone, but this was never shown to be true, and is a political
1185:. I'm afraid my original position still stands. This woman may or may not have had an affair with GHWB. If there was any solid proof, she'd be notable, but as it was she had an unremarkable career- we can't have every White House aide and his dog with an article. I disagree with a lot of
921:). That is fair, and neutral. If we can find a significant statement by her about the claims, consider noting that too (NPOV) though thats pretty much implied anyway. But either way, the bio itself seems a good keep, and mention of that issue isn't in it at this point.
311:
page and redirecting there, but even that is questionable; I consider myself fairly politically knowledgeable and had never once heard of this individual before now. Someone should also delete the fair-use image which calls her a "recluse" in its description.
1132:
The major reference used five times in the (current) article concentrates on alleged wrong doings, emphasising this reference is almost like writing the article about the alleged affair, which is why it was listed for AfD in the first place.
467:
the subject; this one appears to be drawn entirely from tangential mentions of
Fitzgerald in articles and books on other subjects. Given the gaping gaps – this article is just a list of her job titles, with no mention of her personal life,
958:, or similar; she is notable due to her career alone. However, rumors about her &, er, her boss (who is a very notable person) have existed for some time so, as FT2 pointed out, we will need to figure out how to handle them. --
905:
Regarding its quality, and any mention of the purported liaison, these are fixable cleanup issues. We don't delete an article on an otherwise notable person for that. In fact since the liaison is treated by good sources such as
165:
Delete, for BLP concerns, and for simple lack of genuine notability on her own. At most this deserves a one or two sentence sourced footnote on the George H. W. Bush article, and not even a redirect in our MediaWiki system.
902:. . The article was poor in tone, and I've edited it somewhat to fix that. It's missing some information that we should have (family, background, current retirement, etc), but it seems clearly to me to be a notable person.
1128:
vios. This article came about due to an alleged (and denied) affair with Bush, and most of the edits have been about this. If there was just a few spurious edis then fine, but not virtually the whole edit
793:
Pathetic choice of tagging. The article is not uncited. The issue with the article is the content. It's not a biography, and she's not notable. There's been no meaningful "improvement" to the article.
608:(Oh, I see it's already there). I wrote most of this years ago, before we had BLP. I can understand why we ought not to have a stand-alone article, but in the context of that campaign it is notable.
817:
just read it now. Still fails BIO, N, with some BLP concerns about the affair rumors thrown in. Why doesn't the ARS partrol the thousands of uncited articles? THere's a category for that even.
1177:
272:
244:
150:
1072:- not notable career diplomat and aide to former president GHWB. At most a mention of her in the background sections on the president as an important advisor prior. --
40:
910:
as being effectively confirmed, which is unusual for a major newspaper of that quality, there is a good case we should not whitewash. It need only be as brief as:
350:"Years later, Barbara Bush was still bitter when she complained to author Gail Sheehy that her husband had not even noticed that she had stopped coloring her hair.
731:
If "what other people think of her" is found in RSs, she's notable. What's here shows a notable political figure. Earlier problems seem to have been solved.
872:
who we do have a separate article on. (Incidentally Better Currie actually came to public attention primarily because of her role in the
Lewinsky affair).
858:
no sources at all. JF is not notable for here career, because the sources do not note her for her it. Can you provide any source that says otherwise?--
531:
following the "improvements" by the ARS. Still fails multiple criteria, most importantly BLP. These are nothing but allegations. It's inappropriate.
451:, who's an inherently unreliable source, especially when it comes to BLPs. The other references are one-line mentions in articles on other subjects (
983:
are enough to ensure that a well-referenced, albeit stubby, bio belongs here. Any further additions should be made with caution and due respect for
117:
112:
452:
121:
912:"in 1992, and following the Lewinsky scandal, allegations of a prior affair between Bush and Fitzgerald appeared in some major newspapers."
104:
1003:
17:
1250:
509:. As I said there, I don't believe this is appropriate for inclusion, as it's only allegations and rumor. A BLP nightmare, really.
839:. The article as written does a good job of showing her successful career which has led to her discussion in many sources. Meets
835:
sentence). In any event, Fitzgerald was as the executive assistant of the Vice-President a high ranking individual akin to say
605:
173:
918:
1024:
1232:
65:
46:
313:
1214:
590:
1217:
1202:
1153:
1109:
1081:
1061:
1028:
1009:
967:
944:
925:
881:
862:
852:
826:
807:
788:
775:
755:
742:
723:
690:
663:
634:
617:
593:
576:
545:
523:
489:
439:
412:
385:
381:
Hallelujah. Let's bolt the doors and call this a choral exclusive then. Can't have the tuneless in here, can we?--
376:
359:
343:
318:
288:
261:
232:
217:
199:
185:
86:
1172:
1103:
859:
785:
687:
631:
382:
284:
196:
1231:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
1021:
108:
64:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
472:
event in the first 42 years of her life, her political positions, family, even a date of birth – the article
998:
931:
FT2, are you seriously suggesting that Kitty Kelley (who you link to twice above) is "fair, and neutral"? –
822:
253:
1077:
426:
have achievements in her own right to warrant coverage, but at the moment there's no indication of it. –
77:. The rewrite has not addressed the concerns that this bio picks out a small part of the subject's life.
1211:
1197:
1053:
613:
587:
572:
300:
192:
1165:
1045:
567:
etc etc. The article is merely speculation masquerading as fact and has no place in an encyclopaedia!
329:
Hillary
Clinton mentioned Fitzgerald in an interview with Vanity Fair, but her last name was not used.
191:
Damn, you beat me here. Yes, this should go, it is a record of a old rumour posing as biography. (See
938:
802:
622:
Not opposed to that if there is anything actually reliably sourced that is of use to that article. ++
540:
518:
483:
433:
280:
1149:
916:"Bush’s relationship with Fitzgerald finally became public during his re-election campaign in 1992"
719:
179:
100:
92:
365:
993:
818:
752:
505:, and I wasn't sure what to do with it. Considering the main author, I posted to the talk and to
356:
229:
214:
506:
422:
unless expanded with something to demonstrate notability (no, not that). Someone at this level
1073:
963:
877:
848:
659:
58:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
984:
502:
1190:
1016:
896:"a dominant figure who has much to say about where Bush goes, what he does and whom he sees"
674:(yes, locking the barn after the horse has long been picked up by Google, but still...) and
609:
568:
308:
1125:
840:
766:
701:
651:
556:
933:
869:
794:
532:
510:
478:
428:
82:
988:
647:
560:
1210:. My opinion hasn't changed, and I can't understand why this AfD has been re-opened. --
1134:
770:
704:
410:
374:
341:
167:
1186:
784:
people notable for alleged (and denied) rumours, and built from sources of the same.--
564:
1244:
1098:
749:
738:
683:
627:
353:
226:
211:
959:
873:
844:
836:
655:
448:
138:
975:
after cleanup by
Skomorokh. I see no remaining BLP concerns and the qutotes in
460:
404:
based on the elimination of the BLP issue and improvements by ARS and per DGG. –
332:(So she mentioned "a Jennifer"? Then why would we say she mentioned Fitzgerald?)
1121:
She is notable only in terms of her dealings with George Bush, not on her own.
78:
447:. Although it's been expanded, most of the "notability" comes from claims by
1038:
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
907:
405:
369:
336:
299:; this poses BLP issues with undue weight and the article appears to be a
1090:
922:
733:
679:
623:
501:- I came upon this article last week when I was categorizing BLPs for
1163:
I do not see any reason for an article on this person whatsoever!---
1089:: No matter which version I look at, I see a non-notable diplomat.
1225:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
398:"worked for George H. W. Bush in several different capacities"
25:
586:. This article is a rumour masquerading as a biography. --
955:
396:
It still sortof lacks a solid assertion of notability (
349:
210:
I don't think a move to rename is appropriate, either.
145:
134:
130:
126:
765:
This article has been rewritten from scratch by the
1043:Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
555:- should have been tagged for speedy on grounds of
273:list of Living people-related deletion discussions
68:). No further edits should be made to this page.
1235:). No further edits should be made to this page.
1124:The edit history of this article still contains
245:list of Politicians-related deletion discussions
900:"You cannot overestimate her influence on Bush"
348:The article recently had loads of odd stuff.
8:
678:at the conclusion of this AfD. Or sooner. ++
162:disguised as a Knowledge (XXG) BLP article.
459:. Yes, we have comparable articles such as
1189:, but we have to draw the line somewhere.
267:
239:
1015:Keep or redirect salient information to
271:: This debate has been included in the
243:: This debate has been included in the
327:: this line is particularly maddening:
45:For an explanation of the process, see
463:, but those are created from sources
18:Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion
7:
73:The result was Clear consensus to
41:deletion review on 2010 October 23
24:
400:is a little weak), but I suppose
307:mentioning this somewhere on the
364:No doubt. Though I believe only
29:
606:1988 U.S. presidential election
47:Knowledge (XXG):Deletion review
1:
1267:
1218:23:02, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
1203:22:57, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
1178:20:35, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
1154:20:17, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
1110:19:39, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
1082:19:31, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
1062:19:06, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
1029:14:21, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
1010:05:34, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
968:20:01, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
945:19:52, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
926:15:18, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
882:15:29, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
863:07:38, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
853:03:42, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
827:18:37, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
808:20:22, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
789:07:32, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
776:02:30, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
756:14:18, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
743:02:24, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
724:21:14, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
691:18:25, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
664:18:22, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
635:18:25, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
618:17:44, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
594:17:31, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
577:17:29, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
546:20:22, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
524:16:53, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
490:19:35, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
440:16:48, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
413:03:03, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
386:17:26, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
377:17:17, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
360:17:07, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
344:16:45, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
319:16:37, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
303:as noted above. I can see
289:16:33, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
262:16:31, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
233:13:37, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
218:16:05, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
200:15:56, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
186:15:46, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
87:23:12, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
914:End of subject. (Source:
868:arguably akin to that of
646:Insufficient coverage in
604:some of the content into
1251:Pages at deletion review
1228:Please do not modify it.
368:is here at this point. –
61:Please do not modify it.
767:Article Rescue Squadron
476:still isn't viable. –
101:Jennifer Fitzgerald
93:Jennifer Fitzgerald
700:as above and also
1064:
333:
291:
276:
264:
248:
53:
52:
39:was subject to a
1258:
1230:
1200:
1195:
1168:
1145:
1142:
1139:
1106:
1101:
1095:
1060:
1058:
1050:
1042:
1040:
1017:George H.W. Bush
1006:
1001:
996:
943:
941:
936:
917:
805:
800:
773:
715:
712:
709:
648:reliable sources
600:Can we at least
543:
538:
529:Sustained delete
521:
516:
488:
486:
481:
436:
431:
331:
315:*** Crotalus ***
309:George H.W. Bush
277:
256:
249:
182:
176:
170:
158:rumor/ploy from
148:
142:
124:
63:
33:
32:
26:
1266:
1265:
1261:
1260:
1259:
1257:
1256:
1255:
1241:
1240:
1239:
1233:deletion review
1226:
1198:
1191:
1166:
1143:
1140:
1137:
1108:
1104:
1099:
1091:
1054:
1046:
1044:
1036:
1004:
999:
994:
939:
934:
932:
915:
870:Monica Lewinsky
860:Scott Mac (Doc)
803:
795:
786:Scott Mac (Doc)
771:
713:
710:
707:
670:Stub this down
541:
533:
519:
511:
484:
479:
477:
434:
429:
383:Scott Mac (Doc)
281:LinguistAtLarge
254:
197:Scott Mac (Doc)
180:
174:
168:
144:
115:
99:
96:
66:deletion review
59:
37:This discussion
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
1264:
1262:
1254:
1253:
1243:
1242:
1238:
1237:
1221:
1220:
1205:
1180:
1167:I'm Spartacus!
1157:
1156:
1130:
1122:
1118:
1117:
1112:
1097:
1084:
1066:
1065:
1041:
1033:
1032:
1031:
1012:
970:
949:
948:
947:
888:
887:
886:
885:
884:
829:
812:
811:
810:
791:
760:
759:
758:
726:
694:
693:
667:
666:
640:
639:
638:
637:
597:
596:
580:
579:
550:
549:
548:
495:
494:
493:
492:
417:
416:
415:
393:
392:
391:
390:
389:
388:
321:
293:
292:
265:
237:
236:
235:
203:
202:
155:
154:
95:
90:
71:
70:
54:
51:
50:
44:
34:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1263:
1252:
1249:
1248:
1246:
1236:
1234:
1229:
1223:
1222:
1219:
1216:
1213:
1209:
1206:
1204:
1201:
1196:
1194:
1188:
1184:
1181:
1179:
1176:
1175:
1174:
1170:
1169:
1162:
1159:
1158:
1155:
1151:
1147:
1146:
1131:
1127:
1123:
1120:
1119:
1116:
1113:
1111:
1107:
1102:
1096:
1094:
1088:
1085:
1083:
1079:
1075:
1071:
1068:
1067:
1063:
1059:
1057:
1051:
1049:
1039:
1035:
1034:
1030:
1026:
1022:
1019:
1018:
1013:
1011:
1008:
1007:
1002:
997:
990:
986:
982:
978:
974:
971:
969:
965:
961:
957:
953:
950:
946:
942:
937:
930:
929:
928:
927:
924:
920:
913:
909:
903:
901:
897:
893:
889:
883:
879:
875:
871:
866:
865:
864:
861:
856:
855:
854:
850:
846:
842:
838:
833:
830:
828:
824:
820:
819:Bali ultimate
816:
813:
809:
806:
801:
798:
792:
790:
787:
782:
779:
778:
777:
774:
768:
764:
761:
757:
754:
751:
746:
745:
744:
740:
736:
735:
730:
727:
725:
721:
717:
716:
703:
699:
696:
695:
692:
689:
685:
681:
677:
673:
669:
668:
665:
661:
657:
653:
650:to establish
649:
645:
642:
641:
636:
633:
629:
625:
621:
620:
619:
615:
611:
607:
603:
599:
598:
595:
592:
589:
585:
582:
581:
578:
574:
570:
566:
562:
558:
554:
551:
547:
544:
539:
536:
530:
527:
526:
525:
522:
517:
514:
508:
504:
500:
497:
496:
491:
487:
482:
475:
471:
466:
462:
458:
454:
450:
446:
443:
442:
441:
438:
437:
432:
425:
421:
418:
414:
411:
409:
408:
403:
399:
395:
394:
387:
384:
380:
379:
378:
375:
373:
372:
367:
363:
362:
361:
358:
355:
351:
347:
346:
345:
342:
340:
339:
334:
330:
326:
322:
320:
317:
316:
310:
306:
302:
298:
295:
294:
290:
287:
286:
282:
274:
270:
266:
263:
260:
259:
257:
246:
242:
238:
234:
231:
228:
224:
221:
220:
219:
216:
213:
208:
205:
204:
201:
198:
194:
190:
189:
188:
187:
183:
177:
171:
163:
161:
152:
147:
140:
136:
132:
128:
123:
119:
114:
110:
106:
102:
98:
97:
94:
91:
89:
88:
84:
80:
76:
69:
67:
62:
56:
55:
48:
42:
38:
35:
28:
27:
19:
1227:
1224:
1207:
1192:
1182:
1173:
1171:
1164:
1160:
1136:
1114:
1092:
1086:
1074:Rocksanddirt
1069:
1055:
1047:
1037:
1014:
992:
980:
976:
972:
951:
911:
904:
899:
895:
891:
890:
837:Betty Currie
831:
814:
796:
780:
762:
732:
728:
706:
697:
675:
671:
643:
601:
583:
552:
534:
528:
512:
498:
474:as it stands
473:
469:
464:
456:
449:Kitty Kelley
445:Still delete
444:
427:
423:
419:
406:
401:
397:
370:
337:
328:
324:
323:
314:
304:
296:
279:
268:
252:
251:
240:
223:Still delete
222:
206:
164:
159:
156:
74:
72:
60:
57:
36:
1048:Icestorm815
892:Strong keep
610:Daniel Case
569:HJ Mitchell
461:Anji Hunter
301:WP:COATRACK
193:WP:COATRACK
1199:You rang?
1193:HJMitchell
652:notability
981:the Times
956:this form
919:The Times
908:The Times
772:Skomorokh
366:the choir
169:rootology
1245:Category
1215:Fatuorum
1129:history.
750:FloNight
591:Fatuorum
507:WP:BLP/N
354:FloNight
227:FloNight
212:FloNight
151:View log
1212:Malleus
960:llywrch
874:JoshuaZ
845:JoshuaZ
656:ukexpat
588:Malleus
503:WP:UBLP
118:protect
113:history
1208:Delete
1183:Delete
1161:Delete
1135:Martin
1126:WP:BLP
1115:Delete
1105:snype?
1087:Delete
1070:delete
841:WP:BIO
815:Delete
781:Note -
705:Martin
702:WP:ATP
698:Delete
676:delete
644:Delete
584:Delete
557:WP:BLP
553:Delete
499:Delete
420:Delete
325:Delete
297:Delete
207:Delete
146:delete
122:delete
75:delete
1100:type!
1005:Space
940:scent
935:iride
804:vecia
602:merge
561:WP:RS
542:vecia
520:vecia
485:scent
480:iride
465:about
435:scent
430:iride
424:could
305:maybe
149:) – (
139:views
131:watch
127:links
79:Kevin
16:<
1187:WP:N
1150:talk
1078:talk
1056:Talk
1025:talk
1000:From
995:Them
987:and
985:NPOV
979:and
977:Time
973:Keep
964:talk
952:Keep
898:and
878:talk
849:talk
832:keep
823:talk
799:enna
763:Note
739:talk
729:Keep
720:talk
660:talk
614:talk
573:talk
565:WP:N
537:enna
515:enna
457:Time
453:e.g.
407:xeno
402:keep
371:xeno
338:xeno
285:Talk
278:-- —
269:Note
241:Note
160:1988
135:logs
109:talk
105:edit
83:talk
1093:Law
954:in
923:FT2
753:♥♥♥
734:DGG
680:Lar
672:now
624:Lar
470:any
357:♥♥♥
250:--
230:♥♥♥
215:♥♥♥
195:)--
1247::
1152:)
1080:)
1052:•
1027:)
991:.
989:RS
966:)
880:)
851:)
843:.
825:)
741:)
722:)
682::
662:)
654:.
626::
616:)
575:)
563:,
559:,
283:•
275:.
247:.
184:)
178:)(
137:|
133:|
129:|
125:|
120:|
116:|
111:|
107:|
85:)
43:.
1148:(
1144:1
1141:5
1138:4
1076:(
1023:(
962:(
876:(
847:(
821:(
797:ل
737:(
718:(
714:1
711:5
708:4
688:c
686:/
684:t
658:(
632:c
630:/
628:t
612:(
571:(
535:ل
513:ل
335:–
258:'
255:I
181:T
175:C
172:(
153:)
143:(
141:)
103:(
81:(
49:.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.