Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mary Lou Sapone


 * 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. If anyone would like to work on this article and bring it up to our standards for inclusion, please feel free to leave a note on my talk page and I'd be happy to put it in your user space. --MZMcBride (talk) 22:04, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Mary Lou Sapone

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

To be a smartass, just read the article. To be more serious, massive BLP failure, the article does nothing but disparage the individual and gets by with the journalistic "alleged". Unencyclopedic. Keegan (talk) 05:38, 29 October 2009 (UTC)  Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NW ( Talk ) 23:33, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. I don't see how a neutral biography can be written from the rumours and allegations that make up the bulk of the cited sources. Kevin (talk) 09:06, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. As the sources/references, including the New York Times and the Washington Post, indicate, the subject has received extensive, high-level news coverage. While some of the matters involved may be "alleged," there's certainly enough factual information to write an encyclopedic article. It may be difficult to sort out the hard facts and the well-sourced allegations from the rumor and innuendo, but we don't delete articles just because doing them right may be more difficult than the average article. Otherwise articles like Sarah Palin and America's Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009 might be ready to get the boot. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 17:34, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete &mdash; the basis of this article's existence is unproven allegations. @harej 01:56, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep The basis of the article is reliably reported material in major national newspapers. The tone, however, does need some adjustment, but that;s a matter of editing.    DGG ( talk ) 02:14, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep: I got over 7000 Google hits. - Ret.Prof (talk) 12:52, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment: don't rely on Google's estimates -- always scan to the end. I get 307 for "Mary McFate", 185 for "Mary Lou Sapone", and 105 for "Mary Sapone". • Anakin (talk) 20:15, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. I'm concerned about the article's accuracy and neutrality, but I believe the sources satisfy notability, and NOT#NEWS. • Anakin (talk) 20:15, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Keep. This person is notable, and the notability is covered in third-party reliable sources. The notability is for more than just a single event - the person has become notable themselves. Agree with Anakin that neutrality, etc. needs to be addressed, but that's not a ground for deletion. Singularity42 (talk) 18:31, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
 * No opinion on notability, but I'm surprised that "Mary McFate" was her maiden name. Sounds like Marty McFly's cousin, the palmreader.  Mandsford (talk) 22:22, 6 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep Whilst the tone of the article may be unencyclopedic, the subject is not. Notable enough for inclusion, so keep and then rewrite to address neutrality concerns. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 22:59, 6 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment I'm of the opinion that Mary Lou Sapone comes under the heading of People notable only for one event and should be judged accordingly. Basically, her only notoriety is based on the Brady Campaign spying scandal. Her role in this was significant enough that the article being about her rather being titled "Brady Campaing spying incident", but whether the event itself is notable enough as the subject of a Wikipedia article, or whether this is yet another case of something that belongs on Wikinews being elevated to WP article status, I'm less certain. I'll note that my earlier edits to this article were to move to its own article the material about her daughter-in-law Montgomery McFate, an individual who clearly meets the notability criteria in WP:BIO. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Peter G Werner (talk • contribs) 21:01, 7 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete. We shouldn't have such negatively written biographies focused on allegations and suspicions. If someone is able to write an appropriate biography, do so in user space (and NOINDEX it) and bring it to DRV when it's thought to be ready for the mainspace. Keeping this article now because it can be rewritten to no longer violate the BLP policy doesn't mean it will be rewritten. In fact, it's much more likely it won't be improved, at least not anytime soon. If someone is interested in doing it now, do it. Lara  17:08, 9 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.