Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Betty Jefferson


 * 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   no consensus. This does not preclude users from proposing or performing mergers, redirects, or other editorial actions as appropriate. Stifle (talk) 11:17, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Betty Jefferson

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Per WP:BLP1E. Subject is notable only in connection with a news event. Doesn't pass WP:BIO as a local politician and there appear to be no reliable sources other than those pertaining to the criminal case. Otto4711 (talk) 22:49, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Adding Angela Coleman and Brenda Jefferson Foster to this nomination. They are even less notable than Jefferson, being known solely for their involvement in the criminal case and not having even the local politician aspect. All three were de-prodded with an unsubstantiated assertion of notability. Otto4711 (talk) 23:07, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete, Nothing in the article shows she is notable. An elected assessor does not meet WP:POLITICIAN.  Notability is not inherited from her brother.  One event, being accused of a crime, does not make her notable.  The 3 taken together do no make her notable either.  The others are not notable either.  A new name 2008 (talk) 23:17, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Betty Jefferson: Retain - Betty Jefferson is a prominent elected official in a big city. That she is involved in a controversial court case is an additional reason for keeping the article although perhaps the litigation information can be consolidated or redirected to an article about the racketeering case.
 * Angela Coleman: Change - Consolidate or redirect to an article about the racketeering case.
 * Brenda Jefferson Foster: Change likewise - Consolidate or redirect to an article about the racketeering case. Rammer (talk) 23:26, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment, I went back and looked a second time for info on Betty Jefferson that has nothing to do with her indictment, but can not find anything that would say she is notable. Do you have any sources that says she is a prominent elected official?  A new name 2008 (talk) 01:05, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
 * They are still members of an influencial family involved with several different community enterprises and scandals. There should at least be a page on the larger Jefferson Family. Rockules318 (talk) 12:54, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
 * User:A new name 2008 is apparently asking me—Rammer (talk) 23:55, 9 June 2009 (UTC)—to turn back the calendar and to find sites about the most-famous Orleans Parish Assessor which do not mention the indictment. Any such sites are anachronistic now, if they haven't been pulled. But here are three:
 * New Orleans League of Women Voters site on Betty Jefferson
 * Orleans Parish Board of Assessors site on Betty Jefferson
 * Louisiana Assessors Association site on Betty Jefferson
 * The second and third sources are simply identifying her as an elected assessor and the first is a brief questionnaire. No one is disputing that she is an elected official. What is in dispute is whether she meets WP:POLITICIAN or WP:GNG. None of these establish her as meeting any standard. Otto4711 (talk) 19:29, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I am not asking you to do anything, You said she "is a prominent elected official in a big city." When I looked for sources that discussed her I could not find anything to back that up and was wondering if you had any sources for your contention.  A new name 2008 (talk) 01:47, 13 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Combine Entire Jefferson Family, There should be an entire page to discuss the members of this influencial family in New Orleans. Rockules318 (talk) 12:49, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions.  -- TexasAndroid (talk) 23:54, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions.  -- TexasAndroid (talk) 23:54, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions.  -- TexasAndroid (talk) 23:54, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions.  -- TexasAndroid (talk) 23:54, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete all per WP:BLP. I would also suggest adding Mose Jefferson to this AfD.  Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 20:26, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Retain all but perhaps in a consolidated article. After the courts declare them not guilty, deletion will make more sense. Right now, the names and the issues involved are just too notable. In the last 3 days the article on Betty Jefferson has had 2403 hits; Brenda Jefferson Foster, 2355; Angela Coleman, 2348.  But if you're going to delete them along with Mose, then why not delete Renée Gill Pratt too?  Rammer (talk) 22:31, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Just curious, how do you know how many hits an article gets? Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 23:35, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Put the (any) article on your screen. Press the History tab.  Click on "Page view statistics." You will get a box displaying the hits on that article (the one that's on your screen), usually for the prior calendar month.  Use the down arrow on the date window within the box to switch the month to the one you want to examine and hit the button.
 * For the article on "Betty Jefferson" in 2009 June, the hits display is at http://stats.grok.se/en/200906/Betty_Jefferson . From there you can simply change the article name in the box and get another article’s hits for that month. Observe that the hits are counted only for the formulation you use of the article name. Thus "Renée Gill Pratt" gives the hits for the version with the acute accent, and "Renee Gill Pratt" gives the hits from users who used just the plain “e” in her given name.
 * This service is provided by user:Henrik, a gallant Swede and modern-day Viking. Rammer (talk) 17:57, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I can't find "page view statistics". Is this something added by a special tool?  Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 18:37, 14 June 2009 (UTC)


 * So the article should be deleted if found not guilty, then she must not be that notable except for the one event. A new name 2008 (talk) 01:53, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
 * A neat tour de force in argument, and I do admire your intelligence and wit. But only Angela, Brenda, and Mose are subject to deletion on that basis. Betty and Renée, on the other hand, have, like William J., been elected officials. You can hardly find sites nowadays which mention their prior noteworthiness exclusively without bringing up the recent allegations. No one has a way of knowing, right now, whether any of these individuals will be found guilty, the American view being a presumption of innocence until proven (in court) otherwise. But people "out there" still want to know the facts as of the present, and that is where WP is of wonderful (and, I hope, objective) utility and service. A growing concern, however, is that the body of indicier involving that cluster of individuals is, to a large extent, the same; thus rather than to repeat it in various articles, one consolidated article (or articles) on the trials may save overall space in WP while simultaneously doing a better job of helping readers understand the alleged networking. Rammer (talk) 18:12, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I must have misunderstood what you said. I was responding to your statement "Retain all but perhaps in a consolidated article. After the courts declare them not guilty, deletion will make more sense."  This appeared to mean that deletion would make sense if they were found not guilty.  But if that is not what you meant, I apologize.  I still have not seen anything that leads me to believe that any of them are notable. Their names are in the news because of the indictment, but that does not make them notable.  A new name 2008 (talk) 19:25, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
 * It was said somewhere of Calvin Coolidge that it wasn't that Coolidge did nothing as president but that he did it better than anyone had ever done it.
 * Being in office made or makes our Jeffersons notable. The allegations that while there they did things they were not supposed to do only increases the need to profile them. At least no one ever alleged that Calvin was crooked. (There was, however, some question, per Will Rogers, about whether he was dead.)
 * But behold below the wisdom of Jennavecia. Now there's a lady with good sense.
 * Rammer (talk) 20:43, 15 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Merge and redirect all relevant articles into an article on the event per BLP1E. لenna  vecia  19:33, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge and redirect into one article about the entire subject matter.  Keeper  |  76  03:08, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 * 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.