Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Edward A. McCabe


 * 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   speedy keep. snow keep - improved and updated (non-admin closure) Off2riorob (talk) 18:12, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Edward A. McCabe

 * – ( View AfD View log )

White house staff not notable person Off2riorob (talk) 20:21, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Nice response to finding out he's died, you're all heart. He was associate special counsel to Eisenhower, then promoted to be administrative assistant for legislative liaison in 1958.|+edward-mccabe+eisenhower+|+lawyer+|+goldwater&hl=en He was made Research Director for Barry Goldwater in 1963, writing speeches for him, and he became Research Director for the Republican Party in 1964.|+edward-mccabe+eisenhower+|+lawyer+|+goldwater&hl=en He returned to law in 1964 after Goldwater was defeated in the Presidential race.|+edward-mccabe+eisenhower+|+lawyer+|+goldwater&hl=en He headed Sallie Mae ("he was chairman of Sallie Mae from 1972 to 1978 and again from 1981 to 1990. He also was on the board of USA Funds from 1978 to 1996 and was a director of the USA Group from 1993 to 2000. He was the founding chairman of the USA Group's successor, the Lumina Foundation for Education, a billion-dollar private foundation, from 2000 to 2003, remaining on its board until 2006") and had an obit in the Washington Post. Not exactly a household name, but easily passes GNG if you bother looking (which Off2riorob clearly didn't).  Fences  &amp;  Windows  20:41, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions.  —  Fences  &amp;  Windows  20:41, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions.  —  Fences  &amp;  Windows  20:42, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions.  —  Fences  &amp;  Windows  20:42, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions.  —  Fences  &amp;  Windows  20:42, 2 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep. Bit of a strange nom. I'm Australian and often see what I consider to be US bias in Wikipedia, but I don't see how being a White House staffer makes him non-notable. Now, not all White House staffers are notable, but this guy clearly is and all you have to do to check is the "news" link above. He has a bunch of write-ups in The New York Times (even after his retirement he gets quoted every now and then) and other similarly respected American newspapers and, as Fences and windows says, he had an obit in the Washington Post. To be frank, I'm don't think WP:BEFORE was carried out in this nomination. Jenks24 (talk) 20:55, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Its life Jim but not as we know it - he's been dead three years mate - A person that died three years ago and had not had his death updated is clearly of low notability - still living after all this time - its a bit very late for wp:before - the guys been dead for three years and no one even noticed - not notable dead living person. Off2riorob (talk) 21:26, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Cute. Actually he was dead before someone created a Wikipedia bio about him. To me, it seems likely that had Wikipedia had an article on him at the time he died, it probably would have been updated. It's really the fault of the article creator who, if they had done a google search while creating the article, would have found the obit in the Post. P.S. please only use level 4 headers and below in AfDs, otherwise it messes up the daily log page. Jenks24 (talk) 23:01, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep - clearly meets notability guidelines. GB fan please review my editing 21:57, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. Clearly meets GNG as per the reasons outlined by Fences&Windows.  There are lots of examples, often systemic ones, where Wikipedia overlooks some topic.  This is not evidence of anything except the interests and editing patterns of Wikipedia editors. Gamaliel (talk) 22:13, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

personal life
He was dead for three years before anyone updated his wikipedia biography
 * Keep - Plenty of coverage by reliable sources to satisfy GNG. Just because few editors on wikipedia care about him to update it is not reason to delete it. Morbidthoughts (talk) 22:00, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep Because of the outstanding work done by Fences and Windows to expand and reference this article. Thank you, the encyclopedia is better because of your efforts.  Off2riorob's deletion argument is bizarre.  He thinks that this article about a notable political figure in the 1950s and 1960s should be deleted because no one until now improved a stub and added the fact that he is dead.  Well, that fact and many more have been added to what was, but is no longer, a stub.  Stubs on notable but somewhat obscure topics are OK, but expanded articles are better.  It is now an informative article, but Off2riorob now thinks it should be deleted.  He thinks that if this person is notable, someone before Fences and Windows should have improved the article, but is not satisfied by the improvements that Fences and Windows has made.  Please remember, Off2riorb, that 99.9% of the world's population are not Wikipedia editors, but billions of people use our encyclopedias in many languages - millions every day.  Shortcomings in an existing article is not evidence that the topic is not notable, but instead is only an additional piece of evidence that this encyclopedia is a work in progress.  Cullen 328   Let's discuss it  06:11, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep - Being the founder of Sallie Mae is enough justification plus there are plenty of refs available. --Kumioko (talk) 16:32, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep - Sufficient coverage in reliable secondary sources, easily meets WP:GNG.--JayJasper (talk) 16:51, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep Sufficiently notable - WP not being updated is notnews . Collect (talk) 18:09, 4 August 2011 (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.