Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Holly Kinser


 * 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   keep. Consensus seems to be that the subject is indeed notable enough to have an article NW ( Talk ) 01:47, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Holly Kinser

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Well written, but largely full of rumor and personal details. If you remove all that, you have an award and a position at a lobbying firm. Xavexgoem (talk) 03:17, 3 November 2009 (UTC)  Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 01:43, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - WP:Notability is satisfied when there is "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." That is satisfied here, by the March 2003 profile in the Philadelphia Magazine and for the 2002 John Baer profile. Further, the subject is a and well-known prominent lobbyist is Pennsylvania and has several successful significant lobbying victories. The subject is frequently mentioned in Pennsylvania media, like the Pittsburgh Tribune Review and Pittsburgh Post Gazette as well as Google News--Blargh29 (talk) 03:21, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Then please balance the article away from personal details. One source that isn't available on the 'net, coupled with a focus on the personal life regardless of notability as a lobbyist seems like a BLP vio to me. Xavexgoem (talk) 03:25, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, I considered that before writing the article. First, I don't think it's a BLP problem, because every word is cited to a mainstream source, and her denials from those articles are included. Just because something is unflattering, doesn't make it a BLP violation. Also, the Erdely article even speculates that the (well-reported) rumors surrounding Kinser help advance her effectiveness as a lobbyist. In fact, her personal life is completely intertwined with her status in the lobbying community, (which is the source of her notability) considering her marriage to the Speaker of the House, the messy divorce, and the continued sniping between the two. About the off-line source, just because a source is not available for free online, doesn't make it unusable within this context. --Blargh29 (talk) 03:31, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Sources show she is notable. I would like the article to be a little more pleasantly written, but maybe that can't be helped. Northwestgnome (talk) 07:55, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Delete. The whole basis for this biography being on WP is a sleazy, soap-operaish break-up involving a politician.  A person ought to be known for more than that in order to merit a biography, and certainly not one this extensive.  The sleaze didn't even have any serious consequences, unlike the Lewinsky matter.  This is just a bio coat-racked on sleeze.  Get rid of it.  Qworty (talk) 02:51, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Sleazy or not, the article is about a person who is the subject of multiple, in-depth, independent profiles on her lobbying efforts and her personal life. That passes the general notability criteria. Also, please note the additional sources attesting to notability identified earlier in this AFD.--Blargh29 (talk) 03:41, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - Agreeing with Qworty. (I'm the nom, but figured I'd make my voice heard for the relist) Xavexgoem (talk) 04:35, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - she is the subject of multiple independent stories in reliable sources, meeting WP:NN. Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 14:56, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. Clearly satisfies the GNG, well-documented claims of significant impact apart from any scandals. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 18:24, 10 November 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.