Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Elizabeth Eagleton Weigand


 * 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   redirect to Thomas Eagleton. history is intact if anyone wants to do a merge Spartaz Humbug! 03:43, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Elizabeth Eagleton Weigand

 * – ( View AfD View log )

WP:BLP1E, no sources apart from that one event.  JN 466  12:23, 20 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete if this was to be on Wikipedia, it would be an article on the blackmail attempt on Thomas Eagleton. I notice the attempt only has one (unreferenced) mention on the Thomas Eagleton page, which is strange given the uncle/niece relationship. Just possibly, this could be merged to his biography - if sources can be found to indicate notability.--Scott Mac 12:38, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
 * The present bio reads like a coatrack to besmirch the Church of Scientology.--Scott Mac 12:40, 20 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:13, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:13, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Thomas Eagleton. Sources about the incident can and should be added there. Location (talk) 21:15, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Merge then redirect The case itself is significant, but Elizabeth Weigand is not a significant figure in her own article. I can't find enough information to flesh this article out or prove Elizabeth has the notability to have her own article.  Let's move the source and information then do a redirect.Coffeepusher (talk) 00:26, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep I resent the inappropriate and unjustified "coatrack to besmirch the Church of Scientology" comment, and it is inaccurate. Is there a reason Wikipedia discussions have to involve ad hominem attacks so frequently?  The extortion episode was notable, as were the culprits involved.  A very high profile sitting U.S. Senator who had been nominated for vice president was subjected to an extortion attempt - by his niece - which resulted in a prosecution and reported appellate case.  The New York Times, AP and other outlets reported on it multiple times.  By way of comparison, the article on basketball coach Rick Pitino, certainly a less significant figure than Sen. Eagleton, contains an entire section on an extortion attempt involving him.  For sake of discussion: Why would a crime like this be notable, but not its perpetrator?  Why would a page for Seung-Hui Cho be appropriate, but this page is suspect?LanternLight (talk) 03:39, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete stuff can be merged if apprpriate but classic Coatrack The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 04:59, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Merge and redirect to Thomas Eagleton. The material is certainly relevant, and the sources here should be added to his bio, but I don't find much basis for a separate article about the blackmailer; is there anything significant to say about her other than this incident?--Arxiloxos (talk) 06:40, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Merge and redirect to Thomas Eagleton per Arxiloxos. I do not see a COATRACK problem, I see a one-note WP:BLP1E problem.  This was not a big news item 30 years ago when I was in high school, and the story did not have any "legs". The subject faded into being a footnote in history. Bearian (talk) 19:52, 22 December 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.