Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Elisabeth Hagen (2nd nomination)


 * 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   delete. I completely discounted both WP:VAGUEWAVEs (one keep, one delete) and the WP:OTHERSTUFF arguments relating to her predecessor don't hold much weight either. I find the BLP1E argument to be the most compelling, as well as the only one based in policy, as opposed to guidelines. However, I would suggest that the subject may be worthy of coverage in other articles. HJ Mitchell &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   01:00, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Elisabeth Hagen
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Renominating for notability concerns as previous AFD was cut short (deleted as WP:CSD and then restored). Note that searches for "Elizabeth Hagen" turn up a number of other Elizabeth Hagens, so casual assertions of "lots of hits" aren't helpful. Note that the current article has zero information about the BLP subject besides her appointment. Rd232 talk 16:43, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. There are some sources quite specifically on her—her appointment was apparently surprising; cf. —but not too much. She certainly has received significant coverage in multiple reliable sources (also ), but all is related to the single event of her appointment. WP:BLP1E says we shouldn't have articles on people covered only in the context of a single event if they are otherwise low-profile. In this case, Hagen's predecessor Richard Allen Raymond also has an article and some coverage in reliable sources unrelated to the bare fact of his appointment—suggesting that Hagen will also get more coverage over time. Ucucha 17:08, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Raymond's article looks doubtful; a couple of press announcements do not a biography make, and there's no sources pre-dating his appointment. The details about food safety seem to belong as well or better in some article about recent US food safety. Rd232 talk 17:23, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete - It is a shame that we are at AfD #2 for no other reason than process wankery, but here we go. This is a textbook WP:BLP1E, only in the news in the context of being a recess appointee.  Such appointments will raise a brouhaha among the opposition party, but are just a matter of routine politics beyond that.  The position itself is not notable; Raymond's article should head to AfD soon as well, while his predecessor Elsa Murano is notable for other things. Tarc (talk) 17:19, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete - holding this sort of civil service job does not make you meet WP:BIO in the absence of significant coverage in multiple reliable independent sources. Massive WP:1event issues too. I think I'll nominate Raymond. Claritas § 17:33, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete - mostly per Claritas. Not very good sources either. DARTH SIDIOUS 2 (Contact) 17:38, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete - as per nom & WP:BLP1E. Codf1977 (talk) 17:43, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:BLP1E.   Snotty Wong   chatter 18:32, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:39, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete as she is only notable for one event and looks a bit like a news coverage about a her appointment. Armbrust  Talk  Contribs  19:50, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. Surely a person occupying a notable position is notable herself. I don't rightly see the problem here--if being nominated for such a job counts as a single event, then we possibly need to rethink "single event." Such a nomination is hardly the same as a single arrest or something like that. Drmies (talk) 02:14, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
 * "a person occupying a notable position is notable herself." - not necessarily. If there isn't enough material to create something resembling a biography, it's better handled as part of the position itself, or a related article. Rd232 talk 15:29, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep per Drmies. This is not a "civil service job", it's a senior position of a U.S. federal agency that requires nomination by the President and confirmation by the Senate.  Prima facie notable. --Arxiloxos (talk) 06:21, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep The individual easily meets notability standards per her office. Her unusual appointment and confirmation add to her notability. Easy keep, but article needs serious work. HeartSWild (talk) 14:58, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Notability of the office itself is questionable at best. Recess appointments are routine, not unusual in the slightest.  They become a minor news blip as the opposition party, equally routinely, has a hissy fit. Tarc (talk) 15:13, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
 * This was not your average recess appointment. HeartSWild (talk) 10:46, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Says who? Rd232 talk 10:59, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
 * One of the references used goes into it a bit. Please note that I am not arguing notability based on her nomination and confirmation. I am only saying that they add to her notability. HeartSWild (talk) 11:42, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but that's just too vague. I presume you mean the WP article which notes Hagen was not first choice - but that's not really about her, and in any case hardly likely to be that unusual. Rd232 talk 11:58, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not talking about any singular event, but the entire body of evidence. She meets notability criteria based on the important office she holds. She is the senior official of a US Federal Agency. In addition, the significant media coverage she received just from her nomination and confirmation adds to her notability. HeartSWild (talk) 12:47, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Are you sure you're not falling foul of WP:NOTINHERITED? I'm not convinced the office qualifies as a "major political office" (WP:POLITICIAN footnote 9), and history suggests that these types of offices gain little coverage besides the appointment itself and standard public relations stuff. The result is a pretty poor excuse for a biography. Rd232 talk 13:32, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Good points. Whether or not this is a political office is debatable. In fact, government agencies are supposed to be a-political. A quick Google search revealed a near endless supply of reliable sources per WP:RS on the individual. If regular notability criteria shouldn't be applied to this person, then wikipedia's policies need to be changed. I agree that the the article needs significant work. HeartSWild (talk) 10:46, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Could you provide some of those "endless" sources? My searches found an awful lot of stuff that wasn't about this Elizabeth Hagen (I mean, you're excluding reports of her appointment, right, per BLP1E?). Rd232 talk 11:03, 3 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Weak Keep Undersecretary positions can be fairly big deals. If not a keep, surely a merge, with target page Under Secretary of Agriculture for Food Safety. Ray  Talk 16:03, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Merge would be the best - it seems likely at this point (unless more sources appear) that this would be the most encyclopedic way to discuss the activities of the various Under Secretaries of Food Safety, including predecessor Richard Allen Raymond (also subject of an AFD now). Rd232 talk 11:15, 5 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep - meets WP:N and WP:GNG Minor4th  08:02, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Claiming it doesn't make it so. I have yet to see a reliable source that doesn't run afoul of BLP1E issues relating to her appointment. Rd232 talk 11:15, 5 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment -- note that nom and most of the delete votes are from editors who have been in a very active battle with the creator of this article, who is now blocked.  This appears to be pure vindictiveness, and it's disturbing that it is administrators who are engaged in this type of behavior.  Minor<b style="color:#f00;font-size:80%">4th</b> </b> 08:05, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
 * This user has not contributed to any AFDs since 23 June, and has now opposed every one of my recent AFDs. There is no dispute between me and either the account which created the article or the banned user the account was a sock of. There is, however, a difference of opinion between me and Minor4th on matters of climate change. Rd232 talk 17:42, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment. Hagen is in the news this weekend as the government's point person in dealing with a new outbreak of foodborne illness, apparently caused by a currently unregulated strain of E. coli in ground meat. See e.g. . —Preceding unsigned comment added by Arxiloxos (talk • contribs) 22:50, 5 September 2010
 * Keep sufficient sources. I agree that such positions are usually notable--her's in particular appears to me. A US Under-Secretary is much more than just a spokesperson  DGG ( talk ) 06:06, 7 September 2010 (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.