Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Helen Jones-Kelley

Helen Jones-Kelley

Helen Jones-Kelley (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

This person is only notable for one event. Perhaps Joe the Plumber will have lasting notability but the person who leaked his records probably will not. Clearly the intent of the article is hostile to Ms Jones-Kelley, as are many about people involved in the 2008 US presidential campaign. The WP policy on attack articles may or may not apply. Steve Dufour (talk) 14:50, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

• Weak Keep/Merge - on the face of it, this article might seem to pass WP:RS (given the amount of sources provided), but I agree with the nominator that there are WP:COATRACK and WP:BLP1E issues here - Helen Jones-Kelley isn't really notable in her own right. However, I think there are better alternatives to deletion: one would be to rewrite the article to focus on the event rather than the person (e.g. 2008 Ohio illegal search controversy), another would be to merge it into a subsection of the Joe the Plumber article. Terraxos (talk) 15:21, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

FYI: This was announced on the Joe the Plumber talk page.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 16:41, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

• Delete/merge NN and NOTNEWS.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 16:44, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
• Delete and Merge - well-sourced but basically a footnote to the Joe the Plumber page. A page on the "ohio illegal search controversy" as mentioned above might work but better would be a subsection of the Joe the plumber page. csloat (talk) 16:44, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

• Please read Wikipedia:Merge and delete. - Mgm|^(talk) 17:51, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

• Keep. Reading the article, it's clear she is notable for two things: leaking Joe the Plumber's records, and a scandal involving fundraising for Obama on state time. Plenty of sources for both (although one needs to be fixed - I'll see about doing that). A merge wouldn't work because the information on the fundraising scandal, while supported by reliable sources, would be off-topic in the Joe the Plumber article. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 16:48, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
• Keep. She is a public figure in Ohio, now a nationally known public figure. The article is well referenced, and I agree with Kafziel, she is notable for more then just the Joe the Plumber records search. The article may need a bit of rework to avoid being perceived as a hostile work, but I had similar issues with the Diane Wilkerson article; that being most of the references available refer only to negative events not positive. Hardnfast (talk) 17:08, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
• Merge into Joe the Plumber - Not notable as a state official (4,000 employees/$12m budget is not enough); otherwise only notable for the event. Per, WP:BLP1E merge it into either Joe the Plumber article or something like Samuel Wurzelbacher improper background search controversy (or something like that. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ashley Todd; Ashley Todd became Ashley Todd mugging hoax.--HoboJones (talk) 17:22, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

• Your facts are not correct. Her department's budget is in the billions, not the millions. Her budget is 17 Billion dollars. This demonstrates the importance of her present job position. Please see the Department biography of Helen Jones-Kelley. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 18:19, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

I get the impression that her agency issues unemployment and family aid checks, not that she is free to spend the $17 billion any way she wants. Steve Dufour (talk) 20:50, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

• Comment are people not reading the article, where it talks about two completely separate events? I had to actually read it, because I had never heard of her before, but are most other people just assuming that the nomination is correct in applying BLP1E? Because it's not. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 17:33, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
• Keep Director of major state agency and therefore notable. The Joe the P. business is worth inclusion, but incidental. BLP wouldnt apply anyway, because it was a major event of national political significance. DGG (talk) 17:50, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
• Strong keep Helen Jones-Kelley heads a major state agency and recieved media attention prior to her background checks on Joe Wurzelbacher. Also, aside from the Joe Wurzelbacher scandal, Jones-Kelley has also participated in another scandal. Numerous reliable sources have commented on Jones-Kelley's misuse of state computers to campaign for the 2008 election - this is documented in Ohio Inspector General Thomas Charles' report on Jones-Kelley's conduct. The issues listed above are about events and not one specific event. As there are numerous media articles concerning her various notable activities, Helen Jones-Kelley has earned a vote of strong keep. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 18:14, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. —Ism schism (talk) 18:05, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. —Ism schism (talk) 18:05, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
• keep She is notable by virtue of office, by virtue of c.v. and by virtue of being the subject of a report from the Inspector General of Ohio (three separate and distinct claims for being notable - each of which is sufficient by WP standards) . Some of her actions were totally unrelated to Joe the Plumber, hence impossible to "merge" with any rationale at all. It is not "coatrack" as the article is quite clearly limited directly to her specific actions. It is not "WP:BLP1E" as with three separate claims to notability, that argument fails. No reason to delete. No article where it would merge with any logic at all. Person is notable otherwise. Pretty clear, even is some people wish she did not exist. Collect (talk) 18:41, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
• Keep. If Joe Wurzelbacher can be notable for simply asking a question, then Helen Jones-Kelley can be notable for performing searches that breach protocol on notable figures (in this case Wurzelbacher) and for allegedly using her computer for political fund raising. Since she's famous for two events, a merge wouldn't be appropriate. --Amwestover (talk|contrib) 19:45, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

• Comment by nominator The other "controversy" is only alleged, says the article. It also seems fairly minor, using her work e-mail to forward some addresses of potential donors to Obama's campaign. I also nominated Barbara West (TV news anchor) for deletion because her article was mainly only about one event. It that case I argued for making a new article on just the event. In this case the information on the event could be given in Joe the Plumber. In both cases I don't think WP should have articles whose main purpose is to tell the world about some bad thing some marginally notable person did. Steve Dufour (talk) 20:23, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

• Reply Concerning Jones-Kelley's use of her state computer and email to raise funds for the 2008 election - please see a the Columbus Dispatch article on the story; E-mails get leader of state office suspended. Also Ohio's oldest newspaper, the Western Star, reported that "Gov. Ted Strickland suspended Director Helen Jones-Kelley of the Job and Family Services Department for one month without pay after a state Inspector General's report found Jones-Kelley improperly authorized the searches of state databases and used her state e-mail account for political fundraising." This controversy is not only alleged. First, Ohio's inspector general has reported on the event. Second, Governor Strickland has reacted to the controversy by giving Jones-Kelley one month suspension without pay. Both these events are recorded in the reliable sources provided above. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 20:57, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Okay. Then I don't think WP should have articles whose purpose is to tell the world about one or two bad things a person has done. Steve Dufour (talk) 22:12, 5 December 2008 (UTC)