Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Darleen Druyun


 * 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. King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 23:39, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Darleen Druyun

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

WP:BLP concerns; does not appear to readily meet WP:N. Entire notability appears to be tied into one event so WP:BLP is a major factor and concern here. WP:COATRACK applies as well. This not a biography in any sense, nor encyclopediac. It's a laundry list of allegations and maybe-crimes. Also, being an executive at a corporations is not evidence of notability in any way, shape, or form, either. There are thousands of such corporations and divisions. Delete per WP:BLP, WP:NOT, WP:COATRACK, and WP:N considerations. rootology ( C )( T ) 20:08, 29 June 2009 (UTC) ]]/Cont 20:19, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong delete, and consider speedy or courtesy blanking during the discussion. This is edging uncomfortably close to an attack page, and I certainly agree with the nominator, particularly about the BLP concerns.  I would add WP:WEIGHT to his list of considerations.— S Marshall  [[User talk:S Marshall|Talk
 * Downgrading to weak delete, see below— S Marshall Talk /Cont  00:10, 30 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep Why would you delete an article about a public person (government employee) who has significant in-depth coverage in multiple independent reliable sources? Clearly notable. Clean it up. Drawn Some (talk) 20:48, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
 * What sources? rootology ( C )( T ) 21:05, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, and there are plenty more in major newspapers and media networks if you Google her name. Drawn Some (talk) 21:13, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
 * You may wish to add sourcing then to demonstrate notability before the AFD closes, or else your keep has no standing. The burden is on those wanting to Keep. rootology ( C )( T ) 21:16, 29 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks, I'll remember that in future deletion discussions when people are screaming "notable" when the subject of the article clearly isn't. Drawn Some (talk) 21:51, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment. Although I'm a strong proponent for deletion of marginally notable BLPs, I think military personnel and government employees are the exception, because their work careers are supposed to be open to public scrutiny.  The case against Druyun received wide-spread attention in the media, even if the article doesn't currently reflect this, because it was such a blatent and extreme violation of government ethics regulations.  Her case is still used in US government ethics training as the primary example of how not to behave in a position of public trust.  That being said, I think there is a valid argument that this article should be merged with United States Air Force KC-135 replacement effort, because her case is completely tied into that topic.  So, I'm neutral. Cla68 (talk) 21:24, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment Although the sources demonstrated sufficient notability, I added a few more. Drawn Some (talk) 21:50, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. Easily passes notability, in my mind.--Talain (talk) 22:27, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions.  -- TexasAndroid (talk) 23:18, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:02, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Weak delete because the article's now better-sourced. The BLP concerns remain, and I think BLP concerns trump notability arguments in this case. I wanted to comment on Rootology's statement, above ("You may wish to add sourcing then to demonstrate notability before the AFD closes, or else your keep has no standing. The burden is on those wanting to Keep.")  I wonder if Rootology's confused about the interplay of WP:BURDEN and WP:N?  WP:BURDEN deals with content, and it places a duty on all editors to cut unsourced, negative information about living people from Wikipedia on sight.  It does not deal with subjects or topics, but the actual text of an article.  WP:N deals with subjects and topics but not content.  So if something's not notable, it shouldn't have a separate article.  It may merit inclusion as part of a different topic, so at least some of the actual text may be WP:PRESERVEd.  In questions of notability the onus is on everyone to look for sources, not on the "keep" side alone (nor on the "delete" side alone).— S Marshall  Talk /Cont  00:10, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete this article is more than 50% attack/controversy, even if cited. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 09:13, 2 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep - I think there are sufficient references here to demonstrate notability. In particular, the existence of the highly in-depth CBS news article is a strong claim to notability, as is the fact that Donald Rumsfeld commented on this case . In response to the comment above: the fact that an article is 'more than 50% attack/controversy' doesn't mean it should automatically be deleted; it means it should be improved, where possible, to comply with our neutrality requirements. And in cases of people only notable for negative events, a mostly negative article is appropriate: Ken Lay and Bernie Madoff are pretty negative biogaphies, but nobody argues they should be deleted. Robofish (talk) 21:34, 4 July 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.