Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sherry Freebery


 * 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. Cirt (talk) 22:10, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Sherry Freebery

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

This seems to essentially be a WP:BLP1E. What we have here is an American public official at the county level about whom an article would never have been created were it not for the fact that she was accused of fairly serious wrongdoing. The trial created a stir in Delaware, but ultimately most of the charges were dismisssed, the judge said "that the case against her was one of the weakest of its kind he had seen," and Freebery was sentenced "to a year of supervised probation and ordered to pay $350 in fines and assessments for making a false statement on loan application." The background of the story can be ascertained here. County level officials who are accused of serious crimes but then largely exonerated by the legal system should not have BLPs on Wikipedia&mdash;Freebery is only really notable for the trial, but if that's part of a larger story perhaps the basic facts could be covered in a non-BLP article. Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 22:43, 25 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete. I proded this earlier as an unreferenced (only dead external links) negative BLP of questionable notability. However the creator Raul654 removed the prod, with no attempt to fix the article. Disappointing really.--Scott Mac (Doc) 22:54, 25 January 2010 (UTC)


 * First, I don't care WHO you are, removing a BLP prod nomination without sourcing the article is showing "contempt for the community" as they say. Raul should know better than to just toss a link into the edit summ. The article as it stands is unsourced and shows no evidence of notability. But if we assume that the article can be returned to the state before Scott PRODded it, but with everything impeccably sourced, we are still left with a BLP1E. Delete unless the article gets a lot more bio than just the trial related info. ++Lar: t/c 22:56, 25 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I think she's probably notable, but since the article is currently a sub-stub it would be no great loss. No problem with deletion, as long as it's without prejudice against future creation of a well-cited article establishing notability. - Jmabel | Talk 23:05, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * If notability were established beyond this one event I would withdraw the nomination, but I'm not sure this is going to happen. The events surrounding her case might be significant enough to warrant an article, and an article about the event is generally the way to go in BLP1E situations like this. An earlier version of the article suggested that this entire affair (at least as far as the defense was concerned) was connected to the Dismissal of U.S. attorneys controversy. It's possible we already have an existing article where some of the info about Freebery's case could be merged (maybe a sub-article of the main "dismissal" article), though I'm not sure. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 23:15, 25 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete A minor county official who did some bad (but not nearly as much as was originally claimed) and was therefore subject of a long-running soap opera in the Wilmington News-Journal. Besides the obvious BLP issues (from what I can tell the legal festivities are still underway) the lack of notability is attested to by the non-appearance of this in the next closest newspaper (the Philly Inquirer). Mangoe (talk) 00:46, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Your claim about the Philadelphia Inquierer is flatly wrong. I did a Lexis Nexis search and got 115 hits on her, at least half-a-dozen of which are from the Philadelphia Inquirer. Example: Federal panel indicts top New Castle County officials DOVER, Del. - A federal grand jury returned an indictment yesterday against the top government officials in New Castle County following an investigation into alleged fraud and abuse in county government. U.S. Attorney Colm Connolly said the grand jury returned an 11-count indictment alleging racketeering, mail fraud and wire fraud against County Executive Thomas Gordon, Chief Administrative Officer Sherry Freebery, and executive assistant Janet Smith. In a prepared statement, Freebery, a Democrat, blasted Connolly, a Republican, for conducting a "purely political investigation." The indictment follows a lengthy probe of county government that already has netted a guilty plea in state court from the county's former police chief. In addition to the criminal investigation, Freebery and Gordon are defendants in a civil lawsuit filed in October by two former staffers who claim the two county leaders retaliated against them for cooperating with the federal investigation. Gordon and Freebery have described those allegations as "outrageous" and "ridiculous." - Metropolitan Area News in Brief, Philadelphia Inquirer, MAY 27, 2004
 * I also counted *a lot* of AP stores (I lost count at 30) and AP stories tend to run in dozens of newspapers. Raul654 (talk) 04:03, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Curious: searching in the Inquirer's site itself turned up nothing. Oh well. I still think there are BLP issues, however. Mangoe (talk) 04:15, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Philly.com gives 6 Philly Inquirer hits Raul654 (talk) 04:17, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
 * The fact that the story was covered by AP and the Inquirer does not really change the fact that this is a BLP1E. I'm still not seeing any evidence that Freebery has received any coverage outside of the trial. Also no one has bothered to add sources. --Bigtimepeace | talk |  contribs 00:39, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
 * BLP1E is about distinguishing whether we should have an article on an event or on the person involved. (It suggests the former) Implicit in this is that we will have an article on one of them. If you want to invoke BLP1E, then you should be arguing that we should rename this article to Sherry Freebury and Tom Gordon racketeering trial; BLP1E is *not* an argument for deleting this article. That's what we have the notability guideline for (Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage.... A politician who has received "significant press coverage" has been written about, in depth, independently in multiple news feature articles, by journalists -- Notability (people)) and it clearly meets this criteria. Raul654 (talk) 19:09, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Raul, if you want the article kept, you should first and foremost add some of your sources to the article, and you should vote keep. Everyking (talk) 06:50, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Tentative keep: the subject appears to be notable based on press coverage, and it had several external links that could have acted as sources (maybe they were intended as sources?). However, if no one bothers to actually cite something by the end of the nom, I suppose deletion is reasonable. Everyking (talk) 03:07, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep notable Sabrebattletank (talk) 06:37, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Just prodding a bit for more information, but on what basis do you conclude that she is notable? Do you see evidence of discussion of her in secondary sources aside from the trial, since if that's her only source of notability this would seem to be a WP:BLP1E? --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 06:50, 26 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete minor local political figure who was accused of something and acquitted. There are 32,000 counties in the US, meaning 32,000 head administrators in county offices. We shouldn't cover all of them. This one had a flurry of local press coverage (none really about her, her biography, background, hopes dreams fears etc...) that's not useful for the construction of an encyclpedic biography. Finally, these unwatched, unmaintained and generally unsourceable blps have the capacity to cause great harm when the cranks get ahold of them.Bali ultimate (talk) 11:59, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep and improve. As a Delawarean, there is a lot out there about this woman and she does pop up from time to time, I am supprised that her article is so small. - User:Schrandit (talk) 14:56, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
 * It's small because unsourced material had to be removed, and still no one has bothered to source this thing in the two and half years it has been here. Also claiming "there is a lot out there about this woman" is not really good enough. There have been a number of news stories about her in the past, but from what I've seen they were all about one event (the trial and the leadup to it), and the argument for deletion is based upon that fact and the WP:BLP1E policy. The fact that she was largely acquitted of all wrongdoing is quite germane, and you'd have to show that the "lot out there" about her goes beyond accusations of lawbreaking which were ultimately found to be untrue on the whole. So far no one has demonstrated notability beyond the trial, and thus those supporting retaining the article are not simply not engaging with the primary rationale for deletion nor articulating a real reason for keeping. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 22:40, 1 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete per WP:BLP1E. Having scrolled through all the results in Google News Archive, I can find only articles related to the fraud case. Furthermore, the subject does not pass the criteria listed at WP:POLITICIAN. Cunard (talk) 06:02, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * The guideline you cite says: Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage.... A politician who has received "significant press coverage" has been written about, in depth, independently in multiple news feature articles, by journalist - I don't see how you can say this article doesn't meet that criterion when when the simple search noted above turned up over 100 articles from at leaset 3 different media outlets (the News Journal, AP, and Philly Inquirer). Raul654 (talk) 18:45, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I do not consider the subject to be a "major" local political figure; she is a minor one. The sources do not make her notable as all of them are about the fraud case, so this is a biography of an individual notable only for one event. Cunard (talk) 21:12, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Probably notable. While linkrot has set in, the earlier references, there is long-running newspaper coverage (culminating with the subject being disbarred by the state supreme court), even a mention in |this book. Still, an article about the whole episode may be the way to go, and should address the BIO1E claims. Xymmax So let it be written   So let it be done  13:37, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete per User:Bali ultimate  SPLETTE &#32;:]&#32;How's my driving? 00:00, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment: I have no strong opinion one whether this should be kept, but I believe I have now solidly cited the basic facts of the case and restored them to the article, so that we can deal with the substance of the matter, rather than a substub. - Jmabel | Talk 18:40, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep per Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage.... A politician who has received "significant press coverage" has been written about, in depth, independently in multiple news feature articles, by journalists -- Notability (people). Raul654 (talk) 18:46, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Raul the argument for deletion is not based upon a failure to meet the criteria at WP:POLITICIAN&mdash;that's not even Cunard's main argument who is the one who mentioned it. The nomination and some of the subsequent delete !votes are based on WP:BLP1E which I'll quote: "Merely being in the news does not imply someone should be the subject of an encyclopedia entry. If reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event, and if that person otherwise remains, or is likely to remain, a low-profile individual, we should generally avoid having an article on them. Biographies in these cases can give undue weight to the event and conflict with neutral point of view. In such cases, it is usually better to merge the information and redirect the person's name to the event article." This is a policy, not a guideline, and it is of far greater importance than WP:POLITICIAN. Not one person supporting the keeping of this article has replied to the BLP1E argument (i.e. shown that Freebery is notable outside of the "one event" that is the accusations and her trial), which is why the closing administrator should clearly close this as delete. You're ignoring the key policy here, and I think you're also ignoring the spirit of BLP and the idea of do no harm, since you're arguing that we should permanently host what will be the most prominent page on this woman on the internet, and which will do little more than repeat accusations that were made against her and of which she was largely acquitted. There is a basic ethical question here, and keeping this article is simply unethical (and also against our policies, thankfully). --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 20:54, 3 February 2010 (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.