Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Huma Abedin (3rd nomination): Difference between revisions

Huma Abedin

Huma Abedin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( • AfD statistics)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

As it currently sits, this BLP is largely a positive spin on negative news re:Subject. This BLP's content,discussion and edit wars relate to only 4 things:1: Subject's tangential relation to her boss, Hillary Clinton 2: Subject's tangential relation to her husband Anthony Weiner 3: A letter written by 5 Republican Congressmen related to Subject's alleged familial ties to the Muslim Brotherhood which most editors here wish to dismiss and diminish as a smear and "conspiracy theory". 4: Abedin's emails made public as a result of Judicial Watch's FOIA request regarding Subject's emails on Clinton's computer which most editors here feel are non-notable. Rather than have a BLP which is skewed away from "anything negative" about the Subject, I think Wikipedia and our Readers are better served by not having a BLP on this Subject at all. On the other hand, other, perhaps most, Editors here, are not and have not been adding any content at all, just reverting content added by a few of us, thus the BLP is too brief and shallow to qualify for inclusion.Nocturnalnow (talk) 18:49, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy keep, SNOW Close, and possibly sanction this user. The subject of the article is notable by a mile, and the nominator knows it. AfD is not the place to address perceived article bias, or the conservative editors' complaints that additions of tangential material that may be negative towards Hillary Clinton is being reverted by those of us who are trying to keep this from becoming the "Conservapedia" version of what this article should be. User is
  WP:POINTY, disrupting Wikipedia to push their conservative POV. Discussion on the article's talk page hasn't gotten us far, hence this. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:58, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete A review of the BLP will show nothing individually notable is within it. Just some references to her relationships with her boss and husband as well as references to what most editors feel to be conspiracy theories from politically biased sources. Nocturnalnow (talk) 19:07, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • CommentStruck Delete !=vote by the nominator, since the nomination amounts to a vote already. Edison (talk) 20:55, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am not a conservative editor...see my Oct. 21st edits re: Lynton Crosby and have never claimed anything about Hillary Clinton re: this BLP. The edit above, however, is a great example of the attack posture and "conservative cabal" paranoia. Nocturnalnow (talk) 19:13, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The subject of this article has sufficient non-routine coverage in reliable sources, establishing notability. Your deletion "rationale" is about things that aren't in this article that you think should be (which are all being pumped up by conservative media, as it so happens). Your problems with this article have nothing to do with subject notability and AfD is a highly inappropriate step for you to have taken. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:44, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely wrong, in my view. The wording is not "sufficient" it is "significant" and that is not the case with Abedin. Also, your lack of AGF is extreme and your continuing reference to conservatives has nothing to do with my editing and in fact I take offense to that allegation which you have made repeatedly about pushing a conservative POV, you are extremely disruptive and maybe just too accusatory to be editing or even discussing edits.Nocturnalnow (talk) 05:32, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per
  WP:POINT. Gamaliel (talk) 19:26, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Please assume good faith. I have no point to make, I am trying to help deal with a currently silly BLP about a non-notable person. Nocturnalnow (talk) 05:36, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep This is a textbook example of a notable figure. I can't see how this person doesn't meet
  talk) 19:38, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete It's not unbiased, and should be removed unless it can be unbiased since many people will be referencing it. As said above: a review of the BLP will show nothing individually notable is within it. It's largely a positive spin about many negative issues written by supporters of her and the campaign. hyperduc (talk) 20:23, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Even if your allegations were well founded, your main point would be no reason to delete the article: see
    WP:SUSCEPTIBLE. -- Hoary (talk) 01:11, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply
    ]

Hoary, you reference an essay, which is not policy. Please see the top of the page you link to, i.e. "Essays are not Wikipedia policies or guidelines. Some essays represent widespread norms; others only represent minority viewpoints."Nocturnalnow (talk) 05:38, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Good. It is indeed an essay, and an essay may only represent a minority viewpoint; thus it is imaginable that this part of this essay represents a minority viewpoint. However, I doubt that it does. Well, the list of policy reasons for deletion is here. It's a list, prefaced with: "Reasons for deletion include, but are not limited to, the following". So you may wish to add to the list "Articles whose content cannot be freed from bias". But then you'll have to argue convincingly that this is a reason for deletion and that the article cannot be freed from bias. I think you'll find this very difficult. -- Hoary (talk) 08:27, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Obviously notable, in the Wikipedia sense of the word; possibly also notable in the real-world sense of the word. And an article here can be helpful: A look in Google Books shows an obsession with Abedin among fringe writers; a WP article can provide a sane version. -- Hoary (talk) 01:14, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment At Notability for People there is a set of qualifications, none of which Abedin meets; i.e."For people, the person who is the topic of a biographical article should be "worthy of notice" or "note" – that is, "remarkable" or "significant, interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded" within Wikipedia as a written account of that person's life. "Notable" in the sense of being "famous" or "popular" – although not irrelevant – is secondary."

In addition, under "basic criteria", we have: "trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may not be sufficient to establish notability." which also fits with the coverage of this glorified secretary and wife of a scandalized husband. I have been asking on the talk page for one example of anything notable Abedin has ever done, and no one has come up with even one example. Nocturnalnow (talk) 05:10, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Well-sourced and clearly meets
  WP:GNG. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 07:29, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep Obvious keep per
  pointy behavior regarding a BLP. Johnuniq (talk) 09:11, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Any renewed media coverage of such topics will undoubtedly result in Wikipedia readers searching on her name. Consequently, it would seem advisable that consideration be given, during this discussion on proposed deletion, to factoring in the question of how and where ' Huma Abedin ' searches would then be redirected, if this article were in fact to be deleted. --- Professor JR (talk) 09:18, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]