Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vera Baker: Difference between revisions

Vera Baker (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)

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

Nominating for deletion on behalf of an IP on the talk page. I personally have no opinion at this time whether the article should be deleted or not.

"There are three major bio points listed in the article:

1) She cofounded a fundraising group - Her cofounder Wambu does not find himself/herself (I don't know what gender the first name indicates) with a wikipedia page, and indeed can barely be found even by a Google search.

2) She was a finance director for a senate race. Not many of those are on Wikipedia.

3) She was DSCC Deputy Political Director - Current DSCC Political Director Jeremy John does not find himself with a wikipedia page.

Furthermore, the page was created just six months ago, in September 2009, 4 years after she had some chance at being relevant for non-scandal related reasons.

I'm not well versed in the technicals of wikipedia rules, but none of this seems like earth shattering stuff. She's clearly up here in connection with affair rumors." NW (Talk) 18:50, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

She was finance director for Barack Obama's U.S. senate race, so she had a pivotal role in helping elect the now president of the United States to his first political office on the national stage. She's also now being reported on as his former mistress, which is why this article is being targeted for deletion after being created six months ago and existing for all these months. She's more notable than ever now and is in the news. The National Enquirer, the same paper that broke the Edwards Rielle Hunter love-child scandal, is reporting on their relationship and it's only appropriate that Wikipedia have an accurate NPOV account of who this high profile individual is. She's clearly notable based on her various political roles and as a figure in a possible cheating scandal involving the president of the United States. There are also allegations of "political fixing" after rumors of the affair emerged. This nomination is ridiculously premature and the timing stinks. Obvious Keep. Electroshoxcure (talk) 19:12, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. It appears that the only potentially notable claim about the subject is something which, if it is untrue, would be libelous, and which doesn't actually appear in the article now. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 19:40, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete with no prejudice against recreation if the rumors prove to be true.--Unionhawk ^{Talk E-mail} 19:50, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I'm unsure as to how to handle discussing the allegations the Enquirer makes within the article, but I can say that reason 2) for deleting the page, at least, doesn't work. Not many finance directors for US Senate campaigns may be on Wikipedia, but how many of them worked on a campaign for a man who four years later would become President of the United States? The page existed before the Enquirer allegations and the AFD now looks, for better or for worse, like blatant vengefulness. We should be mindful of what happened the last time Wikidenizens tried to keep a famous politician's peccadilloes (that the Enquirer first broke) out of Wikipedia. YLee (talk) 19:51, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Ylee, and the fact that this just isn't going to die, and wishing it away won't make it happen. It will be kept like other people in similar circumstances, such that the best thing we can do is keep it around and make sure what's there complies with BLP. Jclemens (talk) 19:54, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:48, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Leaning towards keep as it looks like more reliable media is starting to report on this. I am not sure if [1] is considered reliable enough and seems a little tabloid-ish, but I think we're getting warmer ... –MuZemike 20:54, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I thought I would have seen more in short order, but I am not. Then again, it doesn't help with the oil spill getting all the coverage right now. No comment right now, but if nothing reliable comes up, then I may have to support deletion here. –MuZemike 23:13, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep As the article notes, she's a rarity in political fundraising circles, and was an integral part of President Obama's historic Senate campaign. Quite frankly, I can't see any reason to delete the article other than rank, deplorable racism. The attempt to denigrate her substantial accomplishments is shameful. And I must say -- why does the LOBBYIST Vicki Iseman have her own Wikipedia page, other than to perpetuate the New York Times disgraceful, rumor-mongering attack on McCain the moment he secured the nomination? Her career is far less notable than Baker's. If you don't like the rumors about Baker, then just protect the page, but don't disrepect the woman.TruthfulPerson (talk) 21:25, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - take a look at WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. I highly doubt allegations of racism - if Vera was, say, white, and her article was nominated for deletion (assume everything else about her is the same), I am positive this claim would not have arisen. Furthermore, having an article on Wikipedia or not does not respect or disrespect a person. Airplaneman ✈ 22:50, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• • Comment - WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS says the argument I made is valid. What is very clear is that Vera Baker has impeccable (even historic!) credentials, and the only reason given for deletion is a scurrilous, racist rumor. Conversely, Iseman's credentials as a dime-a-dozen lobbyist are laughable, and that only reason she was given a page was because of an (imaginary) affair. And yes, it is highly disrespectful to delete a person's Wikipedia page full of accomplishments merely because of a nasty, racist rumor. TruthfulPerson (talk) 23:08, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The subject is notable, regardless of whether the allegations turn out to be true or false. People are going to hear rumors, and they are going to want to know if those rumors are true or false, and they will turn to wikipedia for that information. If they do a search for the subject at wikipedia and the subject does not turn up, then they will have to look to other, less reliable sources to get information. Better that they get their info from a reliable source such as wikipedia, instead of an unreliable source such as an internet message board. Anolis carolinensis (talk) 22:37, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep on the grounds that she was a major contributor to Obama's fundraising/campaigning. I think this article needs more than just a few days of protection, but I guess we'll see how it goes... Airplaneman ✈ 22:47, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per Unionhawk. risky. Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 23:18, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep She's notable enough, and I agree with others that the subject for deletion wouldn't exist without an unfounded rumor that some find impolitic. In fact, I hope some interested observer is collecting information so the article can be expanded on in the future. 72.251.35.10 (talk) 00:14, 2 May 2010 (UTC)hitcharide[reply]

Abuse of Process The method used to deal with current event problem by NuclearWarefare NW is an embarrassment. The merits of the story itself have ample questions. See: http://mediamatters.org/blog/201005010006. But to lock down the article without any discussion in TALK preceding, then to ask for the article to be deleted is more commentary on the matter than anything. Some does a Google on the name in the news, sees a Wikipedia entry, then see that the article does not make any mention of the news, but shows the article has just been locked down, and then the entire article is being asked to be deleted. Those events sent a clear message to the reader.

I suggest. The article be removed from a request for deletion. That the article make a brief mention of what is going on. Then to have the article locked down for two weeks.

The sentence could be. " On May 1, 2010 the National Enquirer tabloid ran an unsourced a story about an alleged 2004 affair with Barack Obama. --- Locking it down for two weeks from there does not leave the innuendo that this is being rapidly swept under the rug. Lastly she is a political fundraiser by profession, so this type of story is part of the politics that she is expected to deal with...this is politics.

Nuclearwarfare went off half-cocked, which given his alias is the last thing we need. --Tombaker321 (talk) 01:50, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]