Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Katharine Q. Seelye

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 delete. MBisanz ^talk 13:55, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Katharine Q. Seelye

This is a person only notable for one thing. The incident probably should be covered in the Obama/Biden campaign article, if it is important enough to mention at all. Steve Dufour (talk) 18:28, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete but without prejudice to re-creation at a later date. The subject has been a New York Times reporter for some years, so she may be notable as a journalist. The current version of the article, however, places WP:UNDUE importance on a blog post which claims she wrote a NYT blog post about a presidential debate based on talking points submitted by the Obama campaign. A look at the blog post, however, shows nothing that looks like plagiarism, just discussion of the same ideas that the Obama campaign was promoting. As it turns out, there wasn't much of a controversy about her blog post, but this article makes it appear as though it was the most notable event in her career. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 19:08, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to the relevant campaign article, perhaps? --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 19:35, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Why merge? Seelye was a New York Times reporter before Barack Obama ever ran for any office. [1] Her biography is not an aspect of the Obama campaign. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 00:19, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - She might very well be notable enough for her own independent article, but she's not notable just because she's a reporter for the New York Times. Her article needs to demonstrate that she's sufficiently notable for a standalone article — but at present it's just a brief mention of one single incident from the 2008 election campaign which does absolutely nothing to demonstrate that she's notable otherwise. Keep if the article can be expanded with additional sources to prove that she's notable beyond one minor bit of political noise, but merge and redirect otherwise. Nobody's saying that her biography is itself an aspect of the Obama campaign — but there's only one verifiable statement in the current version of the article which would make her even minimally notable on its own, and that statement fails WP:NOTNEWS and WP:BLP1E. Bearcat (talk) 03:45, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The fact that she seems to agree with President Obama on some issues is hardly notable. I hope that lots of people do or else they made a big mistake voting for him. :-) Steve Dufour (talk) 21:38, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:23, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:02, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:02, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the excellent rationale by Metropolitan90. DENNIS BROWN (T) (C) 13:30, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for reason stated above. --T*85 (talk) 05:53, 18 November 2008 (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.