Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sarah A. Matthews


 * 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. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 01:31, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Sarah A. Matthews

 * – ( View AfD View log )

A deputy press secretary is a minor appointed political position and does not fulfill the notability requirements of NPOL. Further, this article was created by the editor "SarahAMatthews1" which would appear to have a COI in regard to this subject. Or, since the article was created in a single edit, it may be the work of a paid editor. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:24, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:24, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:24, 13 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete, I’m not seeing WP:GNG here. The COI editing is also on the WP:DYNAMITE level. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 23:54, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
 * [The following comment was mistakenly posted on the talk page, so I'm copying it here. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:08, 14 February 2021 (UTC)]This article fulfills 2 of the so-called "NPOL" required criteria: (#4). The person has been elected or APPOINTED to serve on a given country's legislative body or LEGISLATURE ON A NATIONAL or subnational LEVEL; And (#7). The person is a major local political figures who have RECEIVED SIGNIFICANT PRESS COVERAGE OUTSIDE THEIR SPECIFIC REGION. This account has no affiliation with the object of the article, as stated during the non-autobiographical disclaimer. This is a viable article pertaining to a political official who has served in four consecutive posts at the national level, and been headlined in the Washington Post, Times of India, New York Times, and various television outlets. There are several pages which reference less noteworthy and published figures, such as "TJ Ducklo", "Brian Morgenstern", "Judd Deere", "Eric Schultz" and numerous other White House aides and secretaries. This article is equally as notable as a repeated precedent of the notability and noteworthiness of Presidential aides and United States National figures. This article is tremendously well sourced by reputable outlets which both contribute to and support this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SarahAMatthews1 (talk • contribs) 19:04, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
 * A deputy press secretary, even in the White House, is a minor position which is a straightforward hire by the President, and serves at his or her pleasure. They're not elected, and barely even "appointed", they're just hired.   They don't have to be confirmed by anyone, and there's no requirement that the President even have a deputy press secretary.  They could have none, or 6, or whatever fits into the budget.  They get their name in the papers frequently because they pass along information from the President, but that doesn't confer any notability to their own selves, the information could have easily come from a printed handout.  They are a mere transmission channel from the President to the press, and not in any way notable in and of themselves. I'm sure they'd like to think of themselves as being pretty darn important, but it's all an illusion, and -- at least as far as Wikipedia is concerned -- they're just not. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:16, 14 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Speedy delete. Fails GNG and overall notability for members of a presidential administration. --Bettydaisies (talk) 00:12, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment This is an absurd process. This article has been up for 15 seconds and is being flagged by anonymous users as BOTH being created by the subject (which is false and completely unsubstantiated) AND being paid-for by some undisclosed agency (which is also completely FALSE and unsubstantiated). This is why I used the word "spam", and this kind of pile-on bullying behavior destroys hard work, accessibility, and information, and helps nothing and no one. There is a wikipedia page currently up, and has been up for months if not a year, for a co-worker of the subject of this article, yet this article is getting flagged for "notability." An article is being targeted by baseless flags, even at the national and international levels, even well sourced. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SarahAMatthews1 (talk • contribs) 00:16, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
 * We're all pseudonymous (not "anonymous"), just as you are. In any case the article has been "up" for about an hour and three-quarters, which is plenty of time to determine is the subject is notable or not.  It doesn't take that long to read WP:NPOL and WP:GNG and compare their requirements to the content of the article. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:20, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Incidentally, if you'd like to tell us the name of the article about the "co-worker", I'm sure we'd all be happy to look at it and nominate it for deletion if it, too, fails notability requirements. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:22, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you were referring to Brian R. Morgenstern, another of Trump's deputy press secretaries. If so, you'll be relieved to know that I've nominated it for deletion as well, on the same grounds. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:27, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
 * It’s difficult not to call the integrity of the article into question, both given your username and history of edits within the article. Separately, the notability of this article is clearly in question given WP guidelines - as previously stated, if other articles meet similar terms, their notability should also be questioned. This is how Wikipedia works. Due process, reasonable concern, and baseline policy is in no way “bullying” “spam” or “baseless”.--Bettydaisies (talk) 00:25, 14 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Comment I am undecided about notability at this time, but I want to say that the interpretation of WP:NPOL by SarahAMatthews1 above is spurious. The language about appointments refers to appointment to a vacant legislative seat. Example: Alex Padilla was recently appointed to fill the remainder of Kamala Harris' term when she became vice president. This guideline does not apply to appointed legislative aides or White House aides or their equivalents in other countries. In 13+ years of editing, I have never seen this guideline applied this way. Cullen328  Let's discuss it  00:24, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I would think the only scintilla of a possibility of notability would come with the reaction to Matthews' resigning after the Insurrection. I considered that, but it did not, in and of itself, seem significant enough as a one-time event to warrant an entire article. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:30, 14 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete With the exception of articles produced by her alma mater, which are not independent since they promote the university and its graduate, the coverage consists of passing mentions and brief quotations, exactly as expected of press aides. There is no significant coverage in independent, reliable sources. I request that provide a link to the other article, so that uninvolved editors can evaluate the references in that article as well. Cullen328   Let's discuss it  00:44, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
 * It appears unlikely that I will get a response to my request since SarahAMatthews1 has just been indefinitely blocked. Cullen328  Let's discuss it  01:10, 14 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete. Passing mentions as would be expected from her job (per WP:MILL), but no WP:SIGCOV by a proper independent quality WP:RS on her. The article and construction is WP:UPE, and her piece on her resignation (which I removed), is WP:PROMO and WP:UNDUE. Using Wikipedia to build her notability, however, it should be the other way around. Britishfinance (talk) 00:48, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete per foregoing rationales and per nom statement, though WP:COI/WP:PAID editing are not in and of themselves deletion rationales to me. Subject does not meet notability requirements despite creator's spurious and misguided arguments to the contrary. The coverage is not sufficient. I came here from the ANI thread and decided to see for myself. They do  not meet NPOL, GNG, or ANYBIO. Britishfinance puts it well, above. Though Tobias has wisely precluded deleting under WP:CSD at the ANI thread, I feel this page does meet enough of my criteria for WP:G11 for biographies that I would likely have honored a CSD tag. I do not agree subject meets WP:A7. -- Deep fried okra  ( talk ) 01:42, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete I searched and found that the subject lacks significant coverage in independent RS. She's young though and she at least has an ounce of sense so maybe she'll accomplish something notable in the future. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  01:59, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete Does not meet NPOL, and few mentions in RS beyond qoutes attributed to her while she was affiliated with the Trump campaign, as expected from her previous position. BrxBrx(talk)(please reply with BrxBrx ) 02:07, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Soft Delete as the work of now-blocked trolls. The subject may satisfy general notability; in my opinion, the subject probably is notable, but that need not be considered.  Even if the article appears to be correct and even if the subject is notable, its veracity is suspect because it was written by trolls.  Robert McClenon (talk) 02:16, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:18, 14 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete for the same reasons as Robert and lack of sig coverage too. Hughesdarren (talk) 02:58, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Just to make it clear, in WP:NPOL's to serve on a given country's legislative body or legislature, that "on" is very important. She's not a person who serves on either branch of Congress - those would be Senators and Congresspersons. No, she has served the body, worked for them. That's a very different situation. --Nat Gertler (talk) 03:30, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete as per nom. Seems like a case of COI. DoctorsHub (talk) 05:42, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete - Per nom. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NPOL. - Aoidh (talk) 06:13, 14 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete per all above. AnotherEditor144talk contribs 09:18, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Most are supporting a delete. Let this wait a day, then delete it. I watchlisted this page for actions. AnotherEditor144talk contribs 09:20, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

William Allen Simpson (talk) 14:38, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete per all above — fails WP:GNG and WP:NPOL — not a member of a legislative body, neither elected nor confirmed cabinet appointment. I'm not a pseudonymous editor. Just happened upon this over at ANI, next to a discussion I'd initiated there.
 * Delete per all above. M.Bitton (talk) 18:55, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment Delete as a conflict of interest. An untrained eye could’ve been fooled though so good on for catching it! Trillfendi (talk) 20:05, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Credit also to User:S0091 who caught it before I did. I just ran with the ball. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:13, 14 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete, Not all White House staff meet notability. Alex-h (talk) 15:44, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom and WP:COI. NN, apparent autobiography whose now-blocked creator justifies with WP:OSE.  Mini  apolis  01:37, 20 February 2021 (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.