Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rachel Mitchell


 * 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. (non-admin closure) Kpg  jhp  jm  15:34, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

Rachel Mitchell

 * – ( Rachel Mitchell|View AfD View log  Stats )

This is an article about a deputy county attorney in a County Attorney’s office. She does not meet WP:GNG or WP:BIO, and no one would have even thought of writing an article about her except for one thing: she was written about in many news stories on one day, September 27, 2018, because of her involvement that day, and that day only, in the Brett Kavanaugh confirmation hearings. This looks like a classic case of WP:BLP1E, or more accurately, WP:BIO1E: "If the event is highly significant, and the individual's role within it is a large one, a separate article is generally appropriate. … When the role played by an individual in the event is less significant, an independent article may not be needed, and a redirect is appropriate." MelanieN (talk) 00:06, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep (this will likely be a snow keep) As the nom quoted WP:BIO1E "If the event is highly significant, and the individual's role within it is a large one, a separate article is generally appropriate." The event was highly significant. Her role was large.  Several dozen of the world's most reliable sources mention her prominently in the coverage of the event and several had individual articles about her.
 * At home in Maricopa County, AZ, the fourth-most populous county in the US, she's pretty well known as a Deputy County Attorney, and there are likely multiple articles on her work there. Smallbones( smalltalk ) 01:01, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, the event was a highly significant. No, her role was not large. She had a bit part. She will never again achieve national notice after 48 hours have passed. You're probably right that this will be a snow keep, because the past two years have shown that virtually everything that involves Trump or the Trump administration always gets kept at AfD, no matter how minor it is. I did have a hope that this one time it might be possible to apply Wikipedia guidelines long enough to realize that this is a classic case of BIO1E. Also, to respond to Casprings below: she already has a one-sentence bio in each of the three relevant articles; that will be enough in 10 years. --MelanieN (talk) 02:03, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
 * She will never again achieve national notice after 48 hours have passed. How do you know that?  WP:CRYSTAL?  This one event may make a big change in her career.  Also, I'm not sure she was not notable even before this event. --David Tornheim (talk) 18:34, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 01:15, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 01:15, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 01:16, 28 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep Per, Smallbones. Her role here was significant and she is also likely notable for her previous work. Again, this is a bio that will have significance in 10 years.Casprings (talk) 01:25, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep or Merge Keep per Smallbones. If not keep, merge to the confirmation article for Kavanaugh. Definitely doesn't merit deletion.--MainlyTwelve (talk) 13:52, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep per reasons given in above keep votes. --David Tornheim (talk) 18:22, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep - County and district attorneys at large offices are frequently mentioned in the news (49 times before 2018 for Mitchell in AZ papers indexed by newspapers.com) and are minor public figures. Calling these passing mentions seems off, in many cases she was literally creating the news story by her decisions. If she was never the subject of a published profile, it would be hard to write a NPOV, NOR article about her. But because of recent events, she now has numerous profiles written about her career. So to me, her position is encyclopedic and her article can be written to satisfy our core content criteria so there is little reason not to keep. However, as she is not the head of the department and for other obvious reasons, I think great care needs to be taken and WP:NPF can be invoked in age-content disputes, etc. Smmurphy(Talk) 21:23, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Note that she is not the County Attorney. She is a deputy. The County Attorney of Maricopa County is Bill Montgomery (Arizona politician). "Deputy" isn't nothing, but in most DA's offices, all of the lawyers are titled as Deputy DAs. --MelanieN (talk) 01:49, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
 * You are right, my wording was sloppy, thanks. Smmurphy(Talk) 13:23, 1 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Added some cites and material. As to notability, compare Erin Morrow Hawley (deemed not notable) and Zina Bash (so far found notable). Mitchell would be more notable for her office if she was compared to other law enforcement figures or prosecutors, e.g., if her policies of law enforcement had been in conflict with Sheriff Arapaho, or say in contrast to efforts in this field in Denver or Dallas.Bjhillis (talk) 00:22, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep, significant coverage in a whole bunch of independent sources with lots of coverage in many reliable sources. Sagecandor (talk) 04:51, 29 September 2018 (UTC) Blocked sock. PackMecEng (talk) 19:46, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
 * This AfD might have gotten very different responses if it hadn't been started during the recentism of the event. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:08, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep - The amount of reliable sources supporting the article makes it difficult to consider any other option at the moment.--MarshalN20 ✉ 🕊 16:22, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep - The Kavanaugh hearings were obviously notable. Mitchell's role in the hearings was also extremely notable; she was hired to play a certain role, but clearly made many decisions on what to ask and how to ask it.  Her decisions were literally history-shaping.  It's hard to imagine any argument for deletion. &mdash; Lawrence King ( talk ) 22:24, 3 October 2018 (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.