Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Julie MacDonald


 * 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. TravellingCari 20:22, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Julie MacDonald

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

This person is only notable for one thing. The article is also a coatrack to talk about Bush's science and environmental policies. The whole thing also seems like an attack on an individual, in violation of WP policies. Northwestgnome (talk) 02:46, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Massive coverage - this is not a crime victim, she is notable for her actions. Coverage seems referenced and ok in BLP terms. Most of the criticism cited is from other government officials, including the court judgement. I see no broader discussion of Bush administration policies. Johnbod (talk) 03:13, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Criminals, as well as victims, are not usually given WP bios. Northwestgnome (talk) 03:15, 19 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep Julie MacDonald is notable for her previous work and the federal investigation that found her responsible for wrongdoing. She is a former high-level Department of the Interior official. Even though she stepped down over a year ago, she is still in the news because of her work with the DOI. The article is well-sourced, reliably, and is about MacDonald's tenure at the DOI, not Bush's environmental policies, as Northwestgnome would imply. Additionally, all kinds of Criminals have WP bios.Athene cunicularia (talk) 04:14, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. Material is well-cited from reliable sources that are specific and in-depth about her. The news reports span several years, so she (or at least her actions and their results) are not only "15 minutes of fame", but continue to have an effect. Note: I declined a on this page (see Talk:Julie MacDonald for a brief comment by nom and my response). The article could use some work: a bit more bio, what (if anything of note) she accomplished before the controversial activities or since then. As it stands, it does feel at first glance to be very negative, but WP is a teriary source--the solution is to add other material to avoid WP:UNDUE if that's the concern, not to delete what we have. I spot-checked the things that look (again, at first glance) to be COATRACK, and their cited sources actually do specifically mention her and her actions. So it passes WP:V and is on-topic, and actually helps support her having substantial and lasting notability. DMacks (talk) 04:37, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. No reason to delete, highly notable. Neutralitytalk 05:44, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep per above. Recommend nominator familiarize themselves with XfD criteria. Viriditas (talk) 06:59, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep -- as per Athene cunicularia's comments on article talk page. AnonMoos (talk) 08:15, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. Significant coverage in mainstream media. The article is focusing solely on the controversy, but that's not a reason to delete. Nominator can edit it to add other bio details. VG &#x260E; 09:54, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
 * If she was a notable person the other bio details would already be there. :-) Northwestgnome (talk) 11:30, 19 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep. Significant coverage of a notable government official. Gamaliel (talk) 12:53, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep - Meets notability requirements just fine. Everyting is very clearly sourced and I've checked some of the sources, they aren't misleading, everyone SPECIFICALLY mentioning her and her actions and if anything the article is taking it easy. Plus, it's still all over the news. Might as well SNOW this one, I don't see a single actual valid deletion criteria, and frankly I must say that I hope the nominator is fairly new to WP, otherwise I'm going to have my doubts about why you'd nominate an article like this for deletion without even checking it on the BLP noticeboard if that was your concern. -- Logical Premise Ergo? 17:25, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. Notable coverage in media of the story, article well-referenced, no POV, UNDUE, or BLP issues. Agree with LogicalPremise above: speedy keep. Arjuna (talk) 19:18, 19 September 2008 (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.