Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vicki Iseman

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 72.209.11.186 (talk) at 14:34, 24 February 2008 (→‎Vicki Iseman). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Vicki Iseman

Keep. Vicki Iseman is involved in lobbying, a practice that has an everyday effect on every citizen of the USA and perhaps the world. She has been accused by sources close to her and McCain of undue influence, whether or not they had sex. She is therefore relevant to every person in the US. She should not have the priviledge of keeping her information secret and hidden from the public when she is very much involved in decisions of public policy. Her rise in her company is extremely curious, rising from secretary to lobbyist in a very short time. There is obvious reason to question her power and her status in McCain's life and that of other public figures. She has forfeited her right to privacy by trying to determine the course of public policy. There is probably very good reason for a prosecutor to look at her activities and she is a major player in a political scandal, pitting a man claiming to free of undue influence right in the arms of an influence peddler.

Vicki Iseman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Viki Iseman is notable only for her alleged (and denied) improper involvement with John McCain. Until that story broke we had no biography, nor is a lobbyist worthy of one. Now, one could argue that a 2 day story is news and WP:NOT news. But even if the controversy is encyclopedic, it is covered quite adequately at John McCain presidential campaign, 2008 and in addition a fork at John McCain lobbyist controversy. How many times do we need it? Iseman is not notable outside of that, so this breaches WP:BLP1E and possibly WP:COATRACK. Sure, in election years people want to cover scandals, but we don't need bios of bitplayers who are not otherwise notable. No relevant information will be lost be deleting (and possibly redirecting) this. Docg 20:58, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have a source for adding her to that category? --72.209.11.186 (talk) 14:34, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The article provides background personal and career information on Iseman referenced from other sources that are not in the two other pages. Iseman is a public figure and now notable. Wikipedia has many "worthy" articles for lobbyists, just look at [1]. WP:BLP1E addresses the case when "relatively unimportant crime or for standing for governmental election" is discussed which is not the case here. Paula Jones and Brian McNamee similarly are "one event" articles but have risen to notability. WP:COATRACK relates to "a cover for a tangentially related bias subject." The controversy receives only a mention in the Iseman article. There is no bias nor cover. ∴ Therefore | talk 21:16, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Please name the single event. I assert the subject has been a political operator over many years, and while she lobbies many people, her association with this one legislator over time has brought her to this visibility. BusterD (talk) 21:33, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The single event is the accusation in the New York Times of inappropriate closeness between her and Senator McCain. Without this factor she would not be notable as a lobbyist. Sam Blacketer (talk) 21:51, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The reporting in the NYT covered actions she took many years ago, and referred to potential conflicts of interest which occurred in 2000. That something was only announced lately doesn't negate that subject's own actions over many years caused the eventual report. If what the NYT has reported is true, this was going to get out eventually. BusterD (talk) 22:12, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment There has been even more extensive discussion about this at Talk:Vicki Iseman#Merge this with John McCain presidential campaign, 2008 which currently has not reached consensus. ∴ Therefore | talk 21:20, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as one of the page watchers/builders. If it's contended that these are the subject's fifteen minutes of fame, then I would assert that the minutes are not yet up, and therefore we can't know anything about the subject's long-term notability. We do know that subject is a registered lobbyist with both US House and Senate. We know that as a registered lobbyist, she must file a public report twice yearly disclosing every meeting, travel, meal and each's purpose; each such transaction becomes part of the public record. So I would assert subject is a public figure by law, at least when she's on the clock. This isn't like a barber's license; the system is designed to guarantee public transparency of each and every lobbying transaction by federal law. From the first minutes of this article's history, great care has been taken by virtually all page editors to properly cite each assertion and keep a neutral point of view (with varying perspectives on success). Now that the controversy propelling her into public view has been absorbed in its own article, the pagespace subject of this process is a relatively innocuous bare-bones stub-class biography, and has bare mention of the controversy. If this process chooses to delete or redirect, I suspect we'll either see each other again in deletion review or dispute resolution before long. BusterD (talk) 21:26, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Based partially on this assessment by former WH counsel John Dean (thanks to attorney User:TJRC at BLP/N), I'm conceding Iseman is not by statue a public figure. I still maintain my assertion of de facto significance. BusterD (talk) 14:01, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
15 minutes of fame cannot be decided in the first 15 minutes. When that's passed, if she's still famous, we can reconsider. For now, we record the controversy elsewhere, and leave the rest for the verdict of time. The rule of BLP is "if in doubt don't", not keep "just in case".--Docg 21:48, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Would that it were true (8th nomination). BusterD (talk) 21:51, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS--Docg 21:53, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
But this wasn't my argument. I was merely bemoaning that consensus often resolves "if in doubt" inconsistently. In this case we have a public figure who aroused media attention in consequence of the performance of her job. Seems pretty notable, given correct citation from non-tabloid sources). BusterD (talk) 22:05, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Where in WP:BLP does it say "if in doubt, don't". I see this:

When writing about a person notable only for one or two events, including every detail can lead to problems, even when the material is well-sourced. In the best case, it can lead to an unencyclopedic article. In the worst case, it can be a serious violation of our policies on neutrality. When in doubt, biographies should be pared back to a version that is completely sourced, neutral, and on-topic.

This article is properly sourced and entirely neutral -- exactly where is the harm? ∴ Therefore | talk 21:56, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Could you help me understand how the article is "a cover for a tangentially related bias subject", the definition of WP:COATRACK.? Thanks. ∴ Therefore | talk 23:04, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The article is a coatrack because it is a bio of a person who never would have had a bio article except for her entanglement with a Presidential candidate. Someone trots out an old story from 2000 only when McCain is a frontrunner. Despite my call for a merge, I note that we have articles on other women such as those alleged to have geen involved with or assaulted by Bill Clinton, including Dolly Kyle Browning , Sally Perdue , Gennifer Flowers , Juanita Broaddrick , Kathleen Willey , Paula Jones , and Monica Lewinsky , those alleged to have been involved with other Democrats including Donna Rice and Fanne Foxe. From the UK we have Christine Keeler . These women are only notable for their actual or suspected relationships with prominent politicians. If there is enough coverage in newspapers and broadcast media over a long enough period, or if the whiff of scandal proves the undoing of the politician, then apparently WP:BLP1E doesn't apply. If it always applies absolutely to politicians' honeys who get in the limelight, then nominate the Browning, Perdue, Flowers, Broadderick, Willey, Jones, Lewinsky, Foxe and Rice articles for AFD. We should not apply WP:BLP1E or WP:COATRACK in a way which appears to favor any one political party. Edison (talk) 23:21, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I agree with Therefore. If the list of girls that Bill Clinton was alleged to have been involved with all have pages and Brian McNamee has a page, then she needs a page. Just like them, she is notable for only one reason. Unlike them, she is a general purpose public figure. A reader who gains interest in the event is likely to gain interest in the person involved in the event. That page has biographical information unavailable elsewhere on Wikipedia which would not be appropriate on another page. Failureofafriend (talk) 23:58, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We do not keep pages to balance US political parties. In any case, time has kept many of the Clinton era figures in the public eye and interest, that cannot (yet) be said here. If anyone still cares who she is in a year, then write a bio. We don't do bios on bitplayers on today's news - not even to even political scores.--Docg 00:04, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Per Therefore. Also, it solves no problem to delete or merge this article. The sheer amount of news interest about her makes the topic of her life sufficiently notable to have an article in an online encyclopedia. Traditional/paper? No. Online? Yes. They are different standards. By the way, Doc, the argument based on the comparison to Bill Clinton's girls is not about balancing US political parties or evening political scores. It is about precedence having been set for this type of thing. --Unflappable (talk) 00:30, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Week delete. It is too early to know whether this one event will be the springboard for lasting notability as it was, say, for Donna Rice. The scandal is barely breaking at this point. Therefore, at the moment we should take a look to see if she has independent notability. Based on the sources, and my own poking around on google, I think she falls under the standard. There are multiple independent mentions in reliable sources, but they are very minor sources and the coverage is more incidental than substantial. She's just not notable on her own. Not yet. Give it a few months and ask again. We shouldn't be in a hurry here. In the meanwhile a little of the information here might be mergeable into the article on the scandal. Incidentally, notability and being a public figure are not interchangeable, nor is it entirely clear she is a public figure per the legal definition. Wikidemo (talk) 01:12, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Per Therefore and Unflappable. Also: there is a tremendous amount of interest about her right now and people will be consulting Wikipedia wanting to know about her biography. Even if this current scandal passes, she will continue to be subject to increased scrutiny in her lobbying activity because of the notoriety she gained because of her link with McCain. I think that if it is reasonably certain that members of the general public will be consulting Wikipedia in the months and years to come wanting information about her, then she is notable enough to warrant an entry. Adam_sk (talk) 04:40, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm also totally unclear as to why anyone would think she doesn't satisfy Wikipedia:Notability guidelines. "A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." Which of these criteria has this article possibly failed to meet?? The only criteria that I can see someone arguing about is if there has been "significant coverage", but certainly coverage in pretty much every newspaper and on every news broadcast in the country has to qualify as "significant coverage", doesn't it? If not, there's a LOT of material on Wikipedia that wouldn't meet this incredibly high standard. Adam_sk (talk) 04:59, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The "significant coverage" relates to the controversy, so the controversy is notable, and we have an article on that controversy. Show me any significant biographical coverage unrelated to the controversy?--Docg 16:00, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, so, the controversy is notable, but the woman who is at the very center of the controversy is not notable? What a ridiculous, Jesuitical distinction. If the controversy is notable, she's notable. There are approximately a million people who are notable solely because they're involved in a controversy, but the fact that they were involved in a notable controversy is evidence that they are notable, not evidence that they are not notable.
Doc's standards strike me as ridiculous. It'd be like saying: George W Bush is notable only because he's the President of the United States, and it's the United States that is really notable, so we should merge his biography into the United States page.
Adam_sk (talk) 06:53, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As it is in practice almost inevitable that he will be the Republican candidate, this becomes of historical importance regardless of further developments in the matter. always the case with major polticians. DGG (talk) 04:48, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Leaving aside the "almost inevitable" bit, since when were you are to define what "becomes of historical importance" immediately? Can I borrow your crystal ball? --Docg 08:27, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, we don't know that there will be an Olympics in 2008. Could be that China collapses, Beijing becomes a war zone, and all the athletes are killed. At some point we have rely on probabilities. Where the line lies isn't entirely clear, but IMHO this is pretty safely past the gray area. — xDanielx T/C\R 07:23, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Even though I support McCain, this woman does have notable importance.--Dr.orfannkyl (talk) 16:11, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Aside from the controversy? Please explain.--Docg 16:15, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What I meant to say was that it is because of the controversy that she is notable. Sort of like Monica Lewinsky.--Dr.orfannkyl (talk) 13:19, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete With no actual evidence of any wrongdoing on her part, the allegations against her are innuendo at best. The result is an article which will simply repeat these allegations, and by repeating give the appearance that they are true. This is not to mention that she is notable for only this one topic, and even then is ancillary to the greater issue regarding McCain. Most support to keep, it should be noted, is related to the actual incident and not the person. Arzel (talk) 16:19, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The sources are reliable. If you read Vicki Iseman, you will see that the controversy is only given a passing mention. The article provides background information unrelated to the controversy. I don't see how the sources are saying her role is ancillary -- they state that she bragged about her connection with McCain which McCain advisers felt was wrong. ∴ Therefore | talk 17:31, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Again I ask, are there sources relating to the individual apart from the recent controversy? Why do we need this in addition to the article we have dealing with the controversy. (Oh and the same is true of some keep voters - so let's stick to the issues).--Docg 16:44, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]


  • Keep. Subject has been covered extensively in major media, and claims that the story would fade quickly have been shown false, as the New York Times has doubled down on its coverage of her association, political and otherwise, with Mr. McCain. Notability is clear, and countless users will be looking to Wikipedia to provide an article, information, and background on this newly-notable person. If the story fades very suddenly and quickly, we may want to take another look at deleting this article, but this appears very unlikely to happen at this point. It is virtually certain that this individual will continue to meet notability guidelines throughout the campaign - really, does anyone think this will die down in the general election? - and that people will be looking to Wikipedia for information on her specifically, not just the scandal. She needs a page specifically devoted to her, because she is important enough and people will want the information on her career and background. Lee Harvey Oswald is notable solely due to the Kennedy assassination, but his article should not be merged into the assassination article. Sure, she's not as important as him, but she will almost certainly continue to be a major figure for some time. Mr. IP (talk) 19:11, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Let me add something I brought up in the merge discussion: People will be looking to the encyclopedia for specific biographical, past, and career information on this woman who has suddenly been catapulted to prominence. Everything from her birthdate to her lobbying history will be sought out specifically, and that is the sort of individual information that is best covered in a biographical article. People will want specific information about her - because she is now notable and likely will continue to be - of the exact sort that is inappropriate to include in a non-biographical article. That information will be unavailable if a merge or deletion takes place. Mr. IP (talk) 19:18, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Question Can you explain how her background is of any relevance to the 2008 US Presidential election? I understand how the controversy surrounding the alleged relationship is relevant, but not her background. Jons63 (talk) 13:54, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Vicki_Iseman&oldid=193701877"