Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jill Kelley


 * 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 am going to close this as BLP1E. While there are many keeps, only a few of them take issue with how this jives or not with our BLP1E policy. But, as is pointed out by a number of deletes, it is easily argued that this does exemplify what 1E is intended to cover: widespread coverage (well, in this day an age everything is widely covered) notwithstanding, this is a low-profile individual who may have set off a chain of events, but that in itself does not make her an important player. I'm going to make a redirect to Petraeus scandal, and the moment she has a TV show and a movie contract we can undelete the history. Drmies (talk) 01:28, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Jill Kelley

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

I think this is a case of a WP:BLP1E situation where an article is not warranted. This woman has only received a lot of coverage for receiving harassing e-mails and complaining to the authorities about them. Otherwise, the articles do mention that she has some famous friends and has hosted some nice parties, but neither of those things make her notable. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:48, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Jill Kelly (disambiguation); deletion not required. Powers T 18:13, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep Obvious keep - anybody who is all over the national and international headlines is notable enough to have an article in Wikipedia. Somebody who is obscure and only did one thing might apply to the rule. Redhanker (talk) 18:21, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep as this deletion review is, as usual for a current events article, premature. Which is the "1E"?  The emails from Broadwell or the emails to Allen?  It's the fact that this doesn't seem to be contained to the former that led to the creation of this article.  I object to putting this up for deletion review without first responding to the rationale given in the Talk page for creating this article and despite the fact another editor agreed with much of that rationale.  I do not understand the speed with which people put articles related to current events up for deletion review.  All too often it gets deleted and then it just comes back in three days as the sources develop, creating bureaucratic hassles.  More time and energy ends up going into these deletion reviews than into maintaining Wikipedia.  If the sources have little more to say about this person between today and a month from now, then, sure, let's see if we can't delete this.  At present many sources are saying that "The widening scandal surrounding David Petraeus' affair has come to center not only on his mistress, but another woman..." who is the subject of this article.  Create an article for this "affair" and then it may be appropriate to delete or merge this article.   Absent such an article you evidently expect the whole "scandal" to be packed into some other biography.  I note that someone else wanted the Paula Broadwell article deleted as well and merged into David Petraeus.  The problem here is that the Petraus article, which is getting more than 120K hits a day this week, is already overly lengthy, taking a long time to load.  Who among the deletionists here are going to help out with the Petraeus article to keep "Lebanese American" out of references there to Kelley, etc etc?  If some new information comes out regarding Kelley that may have explanatory value for why Petraeus resigned or why Allen's SACEUR nomination is on hold what are we supposed to do with that?  It can only go into either General's bio if you know which General it's relevant to and why.  I'm not keen on a "scandal" article right now because almost all of the material so far relates to one of the player's biographies and we don't have a name for such an article.  But any suggestion about where else to move this information would be welcome as opposed to just a call to delete a fledgling article (or redirect to the disambig which amounts to the same thing).--Brian Dell (talk)
 * Keep This woman is now in the headlines and in the world spotlight. This is most certainly a notable person, in notable situations, that are causing ripples throughout the military, the CIA, the FBI and other aspects of the Intelligence community, the Government, elected officials, cover-ups, and relates to questionable conduct involving herself and others.  There are questions of emails, personal involvements with military personnel, the question of being referenced as "sweetheart" by a Marine General, a question of testimony for child custody related to 2 Generals, concerns between her and Ms. Broadwell, and an FBI agent who presented himself "shirtless" in email and prevented the initial issues from being dropped by the agency when he contacted a Washington representative.  This is certainly not 1 single event and as demonstrated involves multiple facets.  I can find no reason to remove it as it continues to unfold or ever; there is most certainly more to come. Яεñ99 (talk) 18:39, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
 * How in the world is this not one event? You realize that multiple e-mails don't qualify as more than one event, right?  Powers T 19:04, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Redirect Right now this seems like a text book BLP1E. Unless notability outside of the current scandal can be shown, its probably best that we redirect this to either the parent article on the Petraeus article or a disambiguation page for Jill Kelly. This kind of article has always been one of Wikipedia's greatest weaknesses, especially by those with little understanding of WP:BLP1E and WP:NOTNEWS. Again, unless notability outside of the scandal can be established this should be redirected. If future events should prove Kelley has indeed garnered independent notability a new article can easily be spun out of the scandal. AniMate 18:42, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
 * The "parent article" should be Allen, not Petraeus. It's Broadwell who brought down Petraeus, not Kelley.  If Kelley brings down anyone, it'll be Allen.  In any case, I fail to see how having a lot of articles is "one of Wikipedia's greatest weaknesses".  In my view this is a "textbook case" of the sort of bloat we saw in the Benghazi attack article.  You get this huge article with stuff like "Glen Doherty [is] a 1988 graduate of Winchester High School".  This is really of very marginal relevance to the Benghazi terrorist attack.  But all that stuff about the victims' particulars gets piled into the main article because so many in the Wikipedia community for some reason cannot tolerate having that stuff spun out into a separate bio.  The small number of people interested in Doherty's high school can go to that article while the rest of the readership can just inform themselves about why the attack became a political controversy without being subjected to these inane details.  I can see the same sort of thing under development here.--Brian Dell (talk) 18:56, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
 * The correct solution to irrelevant details is to remove them, not sequester them in an obscure article that requires additional maintenance. We do not maintain article ghettos here.  Powers T 19:04, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
 * By this logic Wikipedia should consist of one article. Just call it "human knowledge".  This would permanently and totally preclude the possibility of "article ghettos," wouldn't it?  In any case, I happen to agree with you that article ghettos should be deleted, ''which means deleting those articles that have lain stagnant for months or years instead of going after current events articles that are being "maintained" almost hourly!--Brian Dell (talk) 19:19, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Someone has started Petraeus sex scandal, and though the article title is extremely problematic, I think that should serve as the parent article here. As for your other arguments, I would rather have one overly detailed articles, than three poorly written BLPs where editors throw every single thing they can into them without any consideration toward the subjects they are writing about. AniMate 19:05, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Full agreement with Brian Dell. Also, there is certainly more than 1 scandal.  Note the 2 Generals involved (Petraus/Allen) wrote testimonials on Ms. Kelley's twin sister Natalie Khawam's behalf during a child custody battle - that event is not in context with the alleged adultery of Broadmore/Petraus alone and is instead a question of influence pandering; perhaps under duress?  The event occurred after Ms. Kelley complained to the FBI that somebody was sending threatening emails to her at around the same time that the FBI was first interviewing Petraeus' alleged mistress Ms. Broadwell.  We can't write significant, separate events out of existence by stating; "...especially by those with little understanding..." - who died and made you Omniscient?  Here's a better one; "Oh what tangled webs we weave when first we practice to deceive."  Her associations reach beyond simply being "on-the-sidelines" watching "shirtless" texts from afar. Яεñ99 (talk) 19:25, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
 * On a side note, given the concerns over the current title for Petraeus sex scandal, I've created a discussion on potential retitling on the talk page. Any concerns over the title or retitling should go there. (Talk:Petraeus sex scandal)Tokyogirl79 (talk) 19:27, 13 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep unless we are going to set up an overall page like 2012 American military email investigations or something along those lines. Jokestress (talk) 19:42, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:56, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:56, 13 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Redirect for now to Petraeus sex scandal. That is a term used by tens of thousands of news stories so far, and is not just a salacious term made up by some Wikipedia editor, although "Petraeus affair" might also be appropriate. Her life as a socialite was not at all notable before the alleged email harassment led to exposing  the Petraeus affair and the alleged email exchange with Gen. Allen. Details are sketchy about what she or Allen emailed to one another. This is an instance of  WP:BLP1E. We are not a supermarket tabloid, and we are not on deadline. An article can always be spun out of the Petraeus sex scandal article at some future date.I am amazed that anyone would think that Petraeus and Allen writing letters in her sister's custody dispute somehow contributes to her notability.  Edison (talk) 20:37, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Well said, Edison. For the record, I would be agreeable to redirection to an article on the overall scandal. Mark Arsten (talk) 22:23, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
 * CBS News and others thought it was a notable fact that both generals would intervene like that. The concern with Petraeus sex scandal is that this person is also involved in David R. Allen communication investigation, a related but separate matter. The overall article should have a broad enough title to cover all aspects. Jokestress (talk) 23:05, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep This article does NOT meet all three of the criteria of WP:BIO1E. Specifically, it fails the third test, because the event (military sex scandal and email scandal) is significant and the individual's role within it is substantial and well-documented. This is a developing story, and the centrality and importance of this individual's role is becoming more and more clear as information becomes available. PeaceLoveHarmony (talk) 20:43, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep - Sourced. Also a growing news story with global implications. Too soon to declare this player in the cast non-notable.Cramyourspam (talk) 20:51, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep - Delete if, inter alia, "It is not the case that the event is significant and the individual's role within it is substantial and well-documented." The events in question are significant. Her rôle is substantial and possibly growing.  AndersW 23:29, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete this would be a serious case of notability and one time event deal. -- Camilo S&aacute;nchez Talk to me 00:20, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep. This person apparently has a major role in an ongoing major news event. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 02:40, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Redirect Copy the content back to another article, is my vote, for now. The problem with this type of 'ripped from the headlines' article is that you dont really get a full picture of the person. Most of this article is made up of stuff from current headlines, not really a portrait of a complete human being. It would be fine if it were some article about a video game or something but this is a real person with feelings and a family. Having witnessed the recent Alistair McAlpine debacle (where the head of BBC stepped down after a Twitter mob took up false accusations against someone) the importance of what can be called 'fairness' towards the living should be far more important than putting up a 'latest gush' type article. However, totally deleting the content doesnt really make sense. We are dealing with the public resignation of the head of the CIA after an FBI investigation - that has massive implications for the "intelligence community" as well as the relationship between FBI+CIA (a relationship which could have its own article), not to mention the history of the Pentagon Inspector General office Decora (talk) 03:25, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete The events are notable, but the individual is not. The Petraeus sex scandal is potentially noteworthy if it becomes a continuing issue about the policies of the FBI and the CIA, however Kelley is a footnote in that issue. The Allen investigation is noteworthy only if there is an adverse outcome, connected to him and would be reported in the article on him. Kelley is otherwise not noteworthy. User:HopsonRoad 04:02, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep With all due respect, this woman (Jill Kelley) is famous for the rest of her life from this scandal. Her report to the FBI led to the firing of a CIA Director (and well-known popular retired U.S. General), and her own interactions put a 4-star General, formerly in-charge of Afghanistan operations, currently under Senate confirmation for SACEUR/NATO Chief under investigation.  Claiming she isn't notable is ridiculous.  Ms. Broadwell is likewise lifetime-notable in relation to the affair.  It's sad, but both are notable over this scandal.  Lesson-learned out of this: "Be careful what you email, and to whom, and remember, the 'net never forgets'". You'd think guys in-charge of the DOD would know that, but there you have it.  193.239.220.249 (talk) 12:12, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Fame is not the same as notability. Powers T 15:23, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep - Her life story has been covered in detail since at least 2003.St Petersburg Times January 7, 2003. That was followed by coverage of her life in Tribune January 15, 2003 (at http://nl.newsbank.com/sites/tt/, Search for: "TASTY TELEVISION" AND date(01/13/2003 to 1/17/2003)), St Petersburg Times January 15, 2003, St Petersburg Times October 8, 2003. The Petraeus scandal is bringing forth more biography information not limited to the context of the event, so the article restrictions of WP:BLP1E do not apply. There's indepth biography information again beginning on Philadelphia Inquirer November 11, 2012 and many other sources through Associated Press November 13, 2012. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 14:34, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep this entry. Wikipedia is a source of information. To delete an obviously newsworthy topic dilutes the effectiveness of Wikipedia as an open source. This entry should be retained at least until the full story of her involvement in national security matters is resolved. Other media reports are vague and repetitive.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Infofromomaha (talk • contribs) 15:27, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
 * — Infofromomaha (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. ▫  Johnny Mr Nin ja  18:09, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep for obvious reasons. Corn cheese (talk) 15:33, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep for now. I a few days/weeks we will have much more information. Cwobeel (talk) 15:46, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep because she is the main character that sparked the Petraeus scandal and is now actively at the center of it. If anything, this article will grow by leaps and bounds given the scope of this unfolding case. She is getting huge media attention that qualify for WP:RS, WP:N; WP:V. IZAK (talk) 16:34, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep - I was notified about this AfD although I only created a redirect at that location, ASAIK the creator was not notified. I wouldn't have thought an article could exist there, based on my perception of media coverage. That being said, I don't see how someone could actually look at that article and decide it should be deleted. 1E, recentism, etc. don't matter when there is significant coverage in reliable sources. ▫  Johnny Mr Nin ja  18:09, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Petraeus scandal. An instance of WP:BLP1E, where the only thing we know is that she exchanged a lot of emails with Allen. Before that point, a good supporter of the US Army and military, but nothing else. If a certain volume of email exchange with a notable person enables makes that person to pass WP:BLP, then this place really is going downhill fast and heading towards a gossip magazine! Rgds, --Trident13 (talk) 18:50, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep for now as the person is currently newsworthy. Time will tell whether that is transitory or more permanent. The entry can be deleted at a later point once this controversy is history. Wolfhound1000 (talk) 21:30, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Our metric is long-term notability, not short-term newsworthiness. Notability is not temporary, so if you don't feel it's clear that she has long-term notability, we should default to redirecting her name to another article, and only breaking out her information if it proves to be lasting.  Powers T 18:20, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep — Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.29.176.74 (talk) 00:34, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
 * KEEP - The DIPLOMATIC license plate alone is a HUGE story - very much goes to the entree that money can buy on OUR military bases.   — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.61.18.22 (talk) 22:16, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep - Ms. Lewinsky has a Wiki page, what makes Jill Kelley exempt from having one? She basically bought her access to our top brass, they took the bait and here we are. Keep the page... the people have a right to know. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DLJonestwo (talk • contribs) 13:55, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Monica Lewinsky has many references spanning from 1998-2009, so she is not an example of WP:BLP1E.User:HopsonRoad 01:49, 17 November 2012 (UTC)


 * KEEP She is a key part of a major scandal in US government and politics during the President Obama Administration. Without her triggering a FBI investigation under the strange circumstance of unsent e-mails in a draft folder shared, with who turned out to be her "bete noir". She is prime mover as well as a central actor in the start of the investigation time line which included the former US CIA Director, who was an acclaimed US Army four-star General, now retired and former commander of the only US military Theater Command which was and is still in combat. A serving US Army female Lt. Col. reservist and West Point Academy graduate, who wrote a well-reviewed biography of the General, who it also turns out, she had an adulterous relationship with the General. Jill Kelley, it turns out, may have had a questionable e-mail relationship with an USMC General, the current commander of the US forces and international forces in Afghanistan, who was slated to become the next NATO commander in Europe, but now is in a limbo status with the proposed nomination on US political hold. Bottom line is that deleting the Jill Kelley article is like deleting the Lee Harvey Oswald article because he was just the trigger man and an unnotable former US Marine. --TGC55 (talk) 19:21, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep Passes notability test. She seems to get more notable as the series of events unfolds. "The CIA director and the commanding officer in Afghanistan were both closely involved with a pair of twin Lebanese sisters, one of whom was a self-appointed diplomatic official who hosted lavish parties for American military officers and loaned six-figure sums to family members while defaulting on her own debt payments and running fake charities, the other of whom accumulated millions in debt, allegedly lied to state and federal courts, and was described by a judge as unstable." --Unindicted co-conspirator (talk) 19:51, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Strong KEEP All of the reasons have been outlined above. She is essential part of the scandal.  It would be like discussing Clinton without an article about Monica Lewinsky.--ExclusiveAgent (talk) 20:33, 15 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep This story's not going away any time soon; people will likely want to read something about Kelley, especially if there's additional unraveling from the Allen side of this. I think that this could be re-evaluated in six months, but remember, notability is permanent, you don't have to maintain it for a certain amount of time. Go   Phightins  !  02:12, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Strong KEEP This story has so many aspects -- privacy, national security, sexual mores, politics, military life, law, society, etc, -- that it is bound to be debated for years to come. Too Old (talk) 03:13, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
 * In addition to my previous remarks I must ask why this article is less notable than, for instance, the article on the pornographic actress Jill Kelly? Is there a hidden agenda somewhere? Too Old (talk) 06:31, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Note that Jill Kelly (pornographic actress) has (poorly documented) references that span time, so it is not an example of WP:BLP1E User:HopsonRoad 01:49, 17 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment It does seem like a close to textbook example of WP:BLP1E. But she was on the Food Network reality show Food Fight in 2003.  Does that relatively minor appearance make her a notable person outside of this scandal?  I don't participate in these sorts of discussions enough to know, but I kind of doubt it. Similarly, there are a couple of local news stories above, yet that honestly seems kind of like trivial coverage under WP:BIO. If someone's notable mostly for one major event but arguably notable for other trivial-ish reasons, does BLP1E still apply? AgnosticAphid  talk 07:47, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
 * WP:BLP1E says that if "the event is significant and the individual's role within it is substantial and well-documented" then WP:BLP1E is not grounds for deletion.--Brian Dell (talk) 03:11, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
 * While she is a somewhat important figure in this scandal, I didn't mention that because I didn't think you could really fairly compare her role to that of an (attempted) assassin, who is really one of just two characters. I certainly wouldn't support deleting the Broadwell or Petraeus articles.  Are there other examples of when that exception applies?   AgnosticAphid  talk 08:18, 17 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep This is a significant event and the role of the individual is substantial and well-documented. There are important details surrounding this individual that are better kept to a separate article, but which are important in considering policy and political ramifications of both her role and that of two of our top generals.--Fassett (talk) 04:07, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment Before deleting this entry, a review of two Wikipedia articles, one on a showgirl Christine Keeler and the other on an osteopath Stephen Ward might provide perspective: Nothing, actually, in their lives that would merit an entry. Except for the fact that both were instumental in what came to be known as the [Profumo Affair]] which rocked British politics in 1963. TheaKantorska 20:14, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
 * They may not be notable enough for articles, either. But I also note that both figures have been portrayed in notable media such as film, song, and fiction, which may be enough to distinguish them from Ms. Kelley.  Powers T 22:03, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep Suffice it to say that not only WP:Other stuff exists, but it exists to a very high degree. Women such as Nan Britton, Lucy Mercer, Christine Keeler, Mandy Rice-Davies, Fanne Foxe, Donna Rice, Jessica Hahn, Amy Fisher, Gennifer Flowers, Paula Jones, Monica Lewinsky, Cynthia Ore, Anne Fulda, Rielle Hunter, Ashley Dupré or Rachel Uchitel who were involved in or associated with widely publicized sexual indiscretions, are no longer in the news, but have their own, in most cases fairly extensive, Wikipedia entries and are forever part of history with numerous articles about them imbedded in fairly easily accessible newspaper archives.  While there are practical as well as philosophical and semantic differences among brief notoriety, temporary fame and long-lasting notability, as these are applicable to the million biographical entries contained within Wikipedia, for all practical purposes, the project's all-encompassing world-wide reach means that virtually any living or deceased individual with sufficient references and, as in this case, whose name can be vouchsafed by a reasonable number of inclusionists, is eligible for a biographical entry.  The fairly extensive presentation against either deletion or redirection entered at the start of this discussion by Brian Dell makes excellent points and, furthermore, specifically with regard to redirection, since as of this writing, the Jill Kelley entry has developed into a fairly sizable article with 17 references to newspaper pieces which are about her as well as her family's biographical details, redirecting all of this material anywhere else would overbalance the target article per WP:COATRACK (undue space/weight).&mdash;Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 07:51, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
 * To me, the non-scandal related stuff in this article is really a bit trivial (WP:BIO says, " trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may not be sufficient to establish notability"). None of it would warrant a wikipedia article if she wasn't involved in the scandal, whereas the women you reference seem to have other notable achievements like a TV show or a widely known pet cause (WP:BLP1E).  And we wouldn't have to merge the information about how Ms Kelley's parents owned a restaurant or her sister lost custody of her son in the Petraeus scandal article; WP:COATRACK seems like a red herring.  If people with trivial news coverage don't deserve a wikipedia article, is this really that different?  AgnosticAphid  talk 08:12, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
 * As in the case of each of the names listed directly above, the Jill Kelley Wikipedia entry is a biographical article and, analogous to all of these previous biographical articles, it provides details of the subject's life, not simply her key point of notability. Such details almost always include place of birth, background and profession of parents and other relevant family members, schooling, work accomplishments, marital history, number of children and so on, as exemplified by any entry in Current Biography.  Professionally-written pieces contain such details, trivial as these may be, because each detail is a part of the whole picture.  WP:BLP concerns should be observed in cases of barely-notable, tangentially-involved individuals, but the fact that both top generals wrote the same type of letter in support of subject's twin sister's child custody dispute, inserts her family into the evolving affair, obviating any BLP concerns.&mdash;Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 14:22, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
 * It's not super helpful to modify your comment after someone responded to it without so noting. See WP:REDACT.  AgnosticAphid  talk 16:51, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
 * AgnosticAphid has raised a valid argument [immediately above] by pointing out my non-compliance with WP:REDACT.  For the benefit of those who may care to know the nature of the infraction,  I will repeat the redacted sentence in boldface, with the additions indicated in caps: Women such as Nan Britton, LUCY MERCER, Christine Keeler, Mandy Rice-Davies, Fanne Foxe, Donna Rice, JESSICA HAHN, AMY FISHER, GENNIFER FLOWERS, PAULA JONES, Monica Lewinsky, Cynthia Ore, Anne Fulda, RIELLE HUNTER, ASHLEY DUPRE or RACHEL UCHITEL who were involved in or associated with widely publicized sexual indiscretions, are no longer in the news, but HAVE THEIR OWN, IN MOST CASES FAIRLY EXTENSIVE, WIKIPEDIA ENTRIES AND are forever part of history with numerous articles about them imbedded in fairly easily accessible newspaper archives.&mdash;Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 17:53, 17 November 2012 (UTC)


 * delete I am not good at wiki stuff, so forgive me if I bugger this up. While overviewing some of the examples of similar above, I see that some of them are notable otherwise, or played some more important role in whatever scandal, but this person's notability as "emailed a notable person" seems crazy, especially considering her notability otherwise is "tampa socialite." Sometimes, I email famous people, or ask them to sign posters at concerts, and even if I say, grabbed Obama's crotch, I don't think that would make me notable, regardless of the amount of news coverage it got. Even if said crotch grabbing occurred at a very fancy party, as I imagine it would have to, because I don't think he'd come over to my crappy two bedroom house. 65.25.235.226 (talk) 05:36, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep, notability seems clear based on the sources. Everyking (talk) 00:51, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Conditional Keep If Monica Lewinsky has an article, this person should as well. I'm normally an Immediatist, but I'm starting to see more developments to this story by the day. If the story ended today, then I'd say delete this article and re-direct to the main scandal article. However, I'm reading stories from other outlets where Kelley has deeper connections with the Obama administration - including multiple visits to the White House in 2012, and even a visit to the WH the weekend before the 2012 elections. In other words, there's more to this story than what you're seeing here. Give it a few more weeks, and if the context of her notability remains the same afterwards, then re-direct. Groink (talk) 07:22, 19 November 2012 (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.