Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Susan Lindauer (2nd nomination)


 * 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. The delete !voters fail to rebut the substantive arguments that notability is satisfied, and fail to advance a solid and consensus-supported policy argument that would rebut the presumption of inclusion. BLP1E would not be properly applied here, in part because it is not established that there is a single "event" at issue, and the subject herself has intentionally sought media attention. postdlf (talk) 22:37, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Susan Lindauer
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Article was deleted at AfD, then brought to deletion review. The result of that review was to relist on AfD for a clean discussion. My involvement is purely administrative; I have no opinion on the outcome. -- RoySmith (talk) 23:48, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete per consensus at the previous AfD where it was established that, because the coverage is almost entirely about her arrest and trial, the intent of WP:BLP1E is met. Now that I have seen the article and had a chance to look at the sources, it is clear that to me that that view is correct. I also point out that the DRV was tainted by canvassing, badgering, and dishonesty by the DRV nominator and a strong case could have been made for endorsing the original close procedurally. Reyk  YO!  00:09, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Addendum: I also agree with commenters at the first AfD that WP:PERP seems to cover this precisely. Reyk  YO!  00:56, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
 * WP:PERP reads that we can have an article when: "The motivation for the crime or the execution of the crime is unusual—or has otherwise been considered noteworthy—such that it is a well-documented historic event. Generally, historic significance is indicated by sustained coverage of the event in reliable secondary sources which persists beyond contemporaneous news coverage and devotes significant attention to the individual's role." (emphasis mine) The rule is meant to give privacy to people charged with routine DUIs or shoplifting. This is not a private person needing protection, she has written an autobiography about their role and appears in media interviews. We have sustained coverage from the 2004 trip, to her arrest, the hearing ... and continued media interviews and mentions in current published books and scholarly articles. We are not doing an online perp walk. We also have an unusual legal case where an American is charged with being an unregistered foreign lobbyist, and we have the coverage of the case from the point of the government wanting to force an incompetent person to take medication to become competent. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 01:11, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I think the arrest is the cherry on top of a very big sundae of interesting news, and it might well (together with allegations regarding her sanity) be taken as a discrediting tactic. As usual with spy news, there are a lot of angles, but I've been trying to start gathering together bits in the new "Diplomatic activities" section.  There was coverage of her in an extremely interesting context, namely whether Libya was or wasn't responsible for the Flight 103 bombing, as early as 2000.  I know the draft was written entirely as a crime story, but this ISN'T a crime story, it's something far more interesting. Wnt (talk) 02:40, 26 September 2014 (UTC)


 * delete  WP:PERP the only significant coverage in reliable sources was in regard to the trial  and the events for which she was  on trial. given the dismissal of the charges and the lack of coverage since means deletion. --  TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  00:34, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep Wikipedia:Notability says: "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list." We have multiple years of hits in Google News from her trip to Iraq, to her arrest, to her competency hearing. We have a 5 page biographical profile in the New York Times Magazine. We have 3 hits in the current Google News that only carries stories for the past 60 days. There are 876 hits for her in Google Books and 123 hits in Google Scholar on the legal ramifications of the case. We have video interviews with ABC news and RT news.  --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 00:44, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep: WP:BLP1E stipulates that we should not have articles about low-profile individuals who do not seek attention for the single event they are known for. While I agree that Lindauer's notability is based largely around a single event, she is not a low-profile individual. She is certainly a person who seeks this attention, evidenced by her public speaking, many freely-given interviews and publication of her book. This alone would probably not convince me, but there is also a substantial volume of reliable sources covering her activity over a significant period of time, indicating lasting notability. I wouldn't oppose rewriting this as an article about the trial but I don't think it really matters. Ivanvector (talk) 01:00, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
 * My interpretation of "low profile" when I submitted this for AfD was and is somewhat different than yours, though I'm willing to listen to be convinced otherwise. WP:LOWPROFILE is of course an essay and YMMV as to interpretation.  To me "low profile" has nothing to do with the persons intent and everything to do with how the RS cover that person.  The Naked Cowboy is an active attention seeker, and to his credit he has been able to garner the attention of RS.  Take some hypothetical random 9/11 truther as a counter example (and for the record I'm not talking about Lindauer).  This guy may blog like crazy and try to garner as much attention as possible in order to "let the truth be heard".  So what?  That some conspiracy theorist "source" is willing to give him airplay is no concern of ours.  That he is trying to be heard is also no concern.  What we should be concerned about how the reliable sources take note of this guy.  If the NYT comes out and says this hypothetical nutjob has been making the grade as a celebrity (or annoyance), that would help establish this individual's profile.  Just because a dog barks a lot, doesn't mean the barking is low-profile.  We need reliable sources to establish this.Two kinds of pork Makin'Bacon 16:29, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
 * You're right, and her simply seeking attention wouldn't warrant an article, that's nonsense. It's the volume and persistence of coverage that pushes this over GNG for me. More below. Ivanvector (talk) 18:18, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
 * You didn't post your section below, and in fact managed to remove some comments there. Please try again... more carefully. Wnt (talk) 18:26, 26 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep. Lindauer is not known for just one event.  She is known for a substantial number of separate events, written about in reliable sources.  The article was written in terms of an arrest and ultimate release because this is when much of the information that is known was permitted to come out, but it is certainly notable material anyway.  I have started to add bits of this material but there's a lot to go through. Wnt (talk) 01:21, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
 * You can't just say she is notable for more than one event without stating what else she is notable for. Well I suppose you can (and just did) but it shouldn't have any impact on this decision.  If you summarize what you think these points are, that would be helpful and might even sway some (myself included) to change their view.Two kinds of pork Makin'Bacon 06:05, 29 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep the subject seems to satisfy notability guidelines and the sourcing appears adequate.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 04:47, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:23, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:23, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:23, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:23, 26 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Jeez, I dunno. The article doesn't make her look so good. The judge -- who was later Attorney General of the United States, no less -- said she has a "lengthy delusional history... There is no indication that Lindauer ever came close to influencing anyone, or could have... even lay people recognize that she is seriously disturbed". So what's going on here. Either the judge is right, in which case: no article, obviously. Or else he's wrong, in which case this is an instance of someone at the very highest levels of American jurisprudence (a federal judge, and later Attorney General, and someone mooted as a Supreme Court nominee, and all that) being totally in the can for the national security apparatus to the point of labeling someone as psychotic who isn't, which it's hard to image much greater malfeasance than that, and this would be extremely notable. Impossible to know, but I'm with the judge here, so Delete. If the judge was wrong, let's see some evidence from neutral sources with standing and expertise.


 * For the rest... she's not a published author in any meaningful sense since her publisher is "CreateSpace Independent Publishing Platform", in other words she had the book printed herself, which indicates that no real publisher thought it worthwhile (although maybe she just didn't shop it well). FWIW compare to Imprisonment of Roger Shuler, also a marginal article, but which IMO gets in because of the highly unusual application of prior restraint which in itself is notable. Lindauer's arrest was for being an unregistered foreign agent which is comparatively common and mundane, as was the judgement that she was unfit to stand trail and the subsequent dropping of the case. Nothing to see here, no article, and if the judge was correct -- and again, give me some good sources that indicate this isn't the case and I'll reconsider my vote -- leave the poor woman alone. Herostratus (talk) 04:59, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
 * These are not valid arguments. It makes absolutely no difference whether she could have influenced people or not.  Without arguing over the judge's claim here, we have many, many, many articles on celebrities who have absolutely no impact, whose sole claim to notability is that they make the media echo with their own names until they become household words.  Yet I think even you wouldn't argue for deleting those articles.  As for your humanitarian impulse, I am thoroughly unimpressed with the "subject believes something unusual so let's gag her for her own good" school of AfD, of which this is a garden-variety example.  Wikipedia should not be judging that either; that kind of humanitarianism smells a lot like unconcealed bias. Wnt (talk) 10:35, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
 * These are entirely valid arguments. The decision by Judge Mukasy casts serious doubt that Lindauer was in fact the diplomat and back channel she tried to be, and calls into serious question the veracity of her claims for herself. The charges she actually faced are in fact pretty commonplace and ordinary, not the serious Patriot Act case she claims. Quite a number of her claims fall apart when you look at public sources. Where is the bias? Show an impartial third-party source that shows this to be anything other than what it clearly is, a mentally ill woman who got in over her head, show how her case is notable by impartial standards, and I will reconsider my vote. SpringandFall (talk) 21:24, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Well of course it makes a difference. I think you've been misinformed. We are not robots or pedants here. If it's true that she's a random mentally ill persons (my interpretation of the judge's characterization) then of course we should leave her alone. There are a lot of troubled people out there, some of them get hey-lookit-this coverage, but so what? We're not here to torment troubled people. We're not here to enshrine random peoples unnotable personal troubles in the world's greatest encyclopedia for (given mirrors etc) all time. Right? We're not, is all. There're no interesting constitutional or other questions to make this article of encyclopedic value for future generations to learn about and ponder. No article. Delete. Herostratus (talk) 23:42, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
 * What a boring encyclopedia it would be if only "constitutional" issues were notable. The legal issue was that the government wanted to medicate against-their-will, an incompetent person to make them competent to stand trial. The case is covered in the Harvard Law Review along with other references in Google Scholar. See here for the article: The Law Of Mental Illness
 * You must be aware that the accusation of mental illness is one which the subject has always denied. The reasons given for finding her to be ill include that she believed she had been meeting with members of the intelligence community -- which has been confirmed by multiple reliable sources -- and that she said she predicted terror attacks such as an airplane attack on New York in 2001 -- which was confirmed by one witness, and certainly is not impossible considering how many others predicted the attack, e.g. The Lone Gunmen.  Physicians have since found her to be mentally competent.  So this is an unproven attack on her, definitely not a reason to decide anything.  Even if it were true, we may not be robots, but we are pedants!  Wikipedia is an educational, which is to say, pedantic resource.  That's the essence of Wikipedia. Wnt (talk) 15:26, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
 * It is not unusual for a defendant who has been found incompetent to disagree with the assessment. What is important is that close to a dozen psychiatrists agreed that she was delusional, and the two decisions on her competence were completely consistent. This is legal fact. At her second competency hearing, she was unable to produce any witnesses to say she was competent. She had two witnesses: one was a personal friend, the other a journalist who admitted she had met her only once. "Physicians have since found her to be mentally competent?" Where are they? Why didn't they testify? You can disagree, she can disagree, but it doesn't change the assessment. Have you read the Mukasy decision? He substantiates this in considerable and very specific detail. Have you read her book in which she talks at length about her "psychic powers?" Do we really need to quote it here? To regard Lindauer as a mentally ill person who is being picked on in this context is entirely reasonable. All this said, if there is an article from a reliable, impartial third-party which questions these two competency decisions and finds legitimate anomalies, then by all means bring it up. What we can't do on Wikipedia is independent research. SpringandFall (talk) 02:13, 30 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep. I see a substantial number of documents from reliable sources clearly indicating that she was an object of media and government attention. Matthewhburch (talk) 07:11, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep Sources meet WP:GNG.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 12:04, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep - Massively over the GNG bar, which calls for multiple published sources dealing substantially with the article subject. See (1) "Susan Lindauer's Mission To Baghdad" (New York Times); (2) "Turncoat or Straitjacket" (American Spectator); (3) "Neighbor Seemed Activist, Not Agent" (Washington Post, March 11, 2004 — no internet version); (4)  "Woman Accused of Iraq Ties Is Ruled Unfit for Trial Again," (New York Times — 2008, four years later!). There are many more but  that's way, way more than needed for a GNG pass. Content of the piece is an editorial matter, about which I have no opinion — nor should we here. Carrite (talk) 15:47, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, its still all "one event". Just because an event has received coverage over a multi-year period.  With the US legal system in play, this is rather to be expected.  To me this comes down to what "low profile" means as I describe above.  Does soap-boxing raise their profile?  I'd be interested in hearing the thoughts of someone familiar with the background of BLP1E on this matter.Two kinds of pork Makin'Bacon 16:35, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
 * The guideline, WP:BLP1E actually reads: "If the event is highly significant, and the individual's role within it is a large one, a separate article is generally appropriate." We have an event covered in the New York Times and Washington Post so the event is highly significant. Her role is a large one since it was her arrest and incarceration. Most significant people are only associated with one event in their lives. This policy is the single most misapplied rationale in Wikipedia. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 01:16, 27 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete per WP:BLP1E. In the first five (5) pages of google results, I found only the following references from reliable sources. All were about her arrest and trial:
 * NY Times Susan Lindauer's Mission To Baghdad
 * The American Spectator TURNCOAT OR STRAITJACKET? The odd case of "Symbol Susan" Lindauer.
 * Washington Post dead link: Neighbor Seemed Activist, Not Agent
 * Congresswoman Zoe Lofgren Statement of Congresswoman Zoe Lofgren on Ms. Susan Lindauer
 * I am surprised by the assertions that there are many reliable sources about her at all, let alone about other than this one event. JoeSperrazza (talk) 16:49, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I am mystified. You are getting the same version of the article from the servers as I see, with five different New York Times articles, three from the Washington Post, and many more from other reliable news sources? Wnt (talk) 16:59, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Here's the link I used . There were plenty of references, but, in the first pages I noted, only those listed were reliable. Others were blogs, Examiner, etc. JoeSperrazza (talk) 17:08, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
 * So your theory is that if Google ranks blogs about a topic highly and crowds out hits from the New York Times, that makes the topic non-notable? This is just about the most peculiar AfD theory I have ever read.  Though to be sure, it is interesting that Google ranks the reliable sources so low and the unreliable sources so high for this issue.  There are reputation management companies that advertise the ability to do such things regarding undesirable news about clients, but who would hire them to do this?  (So far as I can tell from her frequent interviews and statements, Lindauer wants her story told!)
 * To be clear: I still don't understand why you're not just reading the article rather than going from scratch to Google. This is why we got it temporarily undeleted! Wnt (talk) 18:13, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Well said! In addition you are skipping hits from Google Scholar and Google Books and Google News Archive. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 01:21, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
 * "So your theory is that if Google ranks blogs about a topic highly and crowds out hits from the New York Times, that makes the topic non-notable?" I said no such thing. I also did read the article. I stand by my comments. JoeSperrazza (talk) 19:29, 26 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep -- this isn't really a close call, she easily meets WP:GNG and there's more than "one event". Nomoskedasticity (talk) 18:32, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment further to my reply to up above: WP:BLP1E is not an inclusion standard. We have it to protect the privacy of otherwise unremarkable individuals who get unwittingly tied up in news coverage of an event they were marginally involved in, for which they do not actively seek attention. Such individuals should be entitled to their privacy, so as a rule we don't write about them. Lindauer is not such an individual. She actively seeks the attention she's getting here, and has continued seeking this attention for a substantial period of time, thus she is not entitled to the BLP1E treatment. She easily passes WP:GNG. Ivanvector (talk) 18:34, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
 * She sure is entitled to BLP1E consideration because she has a "lengthy delusional history" and is "seriously disturbed" (according to the judge, see my comments above for ref). If the judge is correct -- and I haven't seen a smidgen of evidence that he's not -- she actually rates special consideration. People who actively seek attention because they have a ""lengthy delusional history" and are "seriously disturbed" are not the same as normal attention seekers -- not at all. Very very different. Right? Surely you can grok that. Herostratus (talk) 01:00, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
 * To this day she is writing articles expressing similar sentiments to what she has previously. Your position is that there are some people who just have embarrassing ideas, and to protect them from themselves we ought to ban Wikipedia from covering them.  This is not compatible with the function of an encyclopedia. Wnt (talk) 02:22, 27 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Note: because of the weird way this has gone through, I think the old article talk page is still in deleted condition. It might have additional sources or suggestions that could help improve the article and document its notability, so could someone undelete it?  Also, the more conversation goes on the new page, the more complicated it's going to be to do a history merge or whatever. Wnt (talk) 19:22, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete - all coverage relates to a case that received ephemeral interest in 2004 and 2008, ending in 2009. At least one reference does not mention the subject at all. Much of the coverage seems driven by the fact that her father was a politician and that she worked as congressional staff and, to that extent, would fail under WP:NOTINHERITED.--Rpclod (talk) 19:33, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
 * WP:NOTINHERITED is an essay. WP:NOTINHERITED does not trump WP:GNG which states: "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list." Tad Lincoln doesn't get deleted because his dad was Abraham Lincoln. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 23:19, 26 September 2014 (UTC)


 * I have already cast my vote in favor of Delete, but I would like to know why we are going back and forth on this. How much discussion does there need to be? All relevant points have been made over and over. This article does not fit Wikipedia's requirements. There is no new material from a reliable third-party source. Could we just make a decision already and stick with it? SpringandFall (talk) 21:15, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I indented your comment for consistency, I hope you don't mind. It looks like you didn't already !vote in the current AfD, from what I can tell, just made a comment up above. The article was relisted as a result of a deletion review a day or so ago, you can go there to read the rationale (it's complicated). I don't know but I assume this new AfD runs for seven days. Ivanvector (talk) 21:52, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Ah thanks. Well in that case please count my vote. SpringandFall (talk) 02:02, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
 * To say that her notability is "inherited" because she worked for members of Congress is like saying that Andrew Card's is "inherited" because George Bush appointed him Chief of Staff. She simply is notable, and that's all. Wnt (talk) 02:11, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
 * She is notable, for one event. Is there anything else that she is notable for?  I'm not seeing it.Two kinds of pork Makin'Bacon 06:01, 29 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Way Keep. Glad to see a relist at DRV. I could have seen it closed as No Consensus, but (with due respect to the closer) a Delete outcome looks a bit super-!vote-y to me. For my part, I don't think this is a difficult call or at all edgy. BLP1E does not apply, given the extensive documentation of the bizarre circumstances of her lengthy prosecution, a prosecution which was terminated four days before a new attorney general was brought in. The subject's activities, arrest, and notably unusual prosecution count as more than a single incident, given the documentation in multiple reliable sources independent of the subject. As I'd mentioned in the first AfD, for those arguing one event, the event itself meets every criteria of WP:EVENT. BusterD (talk) 22:43, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Care to support this with any reliable, impartial third-party source? There was nothing unusual about how her case was handled, never mind "bizarre." There was no prosecution, for starters, never mind a lengthy one. Once it is proposed that a defendant is unfit to stand trial, prosecution stops and cannot go forward unless and until the defendant is found competent. When a defendant has a psychiatric history, this is what any defense attorney will typically try to accomplish, and it is equally typical for the prosecution to fight it so that they can resume prosecution. This is normal procedure. It is also normal for it to take a long time for both sides to determine mental competence if there is any dispute. She was found incompetent to stand trial twice, and afterwards all charges were dropped. That's it. End of story. The prosecution cannot do or say anything more on the matter in accordance with constitutional law. This is all standard court procedure. The charges she was brought up on were also pretty ordinary long standing laws, and had nothing to do with the Patriot Act. This is one incident only, with no legal aftermath except in Lindauer's imagination. SpringandFall (talk) 01:51, 30 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete - fails notability as a person, and WP:BLP1E also applies. Also smells of WP:promo for her book. 1292simon (talk) 11:47, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Seriously? We have one sentence, "Lindauer has written a self-published book about her experience..."  referring to a book from 2010.  Now when we have a video game ad on the front page, for a product (or the predecessor thereof) that is on sale everywhere, composed of those slick always-a-9-or-a-10 trade magazine snippets artfully crafted into a whole from which any hint of criticism has been combed as carefully as Rapunzel's hair, lovingly illustrated with Fair Use images (about the only Fair use images around here that don't get deleted) to help preview gameplay for consumers, all feeding into the direct link to the manufacturer's site, that's promotion.  And we feature it about once a week as the best work people can do on Wikipedia.  But this??? Wnt (talk) 15:05, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Those taste of promotion. This smells of promotion. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 04:08, 28 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep - why is this even up for deletion. clear case of making the WP:GNG threshold.--BabbaQ (talk) 20:19, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep 31 references, some from the New York Times and Washington Post. That's notable. Busy Moose (talk) 13:02, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete - As stated above (and at the first AfD), we specifically have WP:PERP to cover cases like this. Whether or not GNG is met, this is a BLP article and BLPs have their own additional rules. The overwhelming majority of "sources" relate to the alleged crime, and any claim of notability hangs on that. Without a finding of guilt, PERP is not met. No historical significance, she was not notable before (and has done nothing of real notability since). Tgeairn (talk) 13:29, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Not to badger you but WP:PERP reads (as opposed to what you think is in that rule) that we can have an article when: "The motivation for the crime or the execution of the crime is unusual ... such that it is a well-documented historic event. Generally, historic significance is indicated by sustained coverage of the event in reliable secondary sources which persists beyond contemporaneous news coverage and devotes significant attention to the individual's role." As pointed out she is still in the current Google News (which is news less than 60 days old) and in Google Scholar and in Google Books. That means her impact went beyond the standard one news cycle. Also the crime is her actions, this is not the case where an unknown person mails anthrax and we have several suspects that are "perps" and "people of interest". --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 14:40, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
 * "motivation for the crime was unusual or the execution of the crime is unusual " - well there was no crime, so there's nothing there. And the shoddiness of the US mental health care system resulting in patients being arrested and being processed through the court system instead of the health care system - there is nothing unusual there either- dozens of judges every day face self delusional claims of importance, far more unique than "i am on a spy mission for the govt." Historical significance of being falsely accused? that also happens a hundred times a day and no significance in that. --  TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  03:23, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
 * You are correct! That is why we have a biography and not an article on a crime. Out of the hundreds of times a day these things happen, only a few are covered by the New York Times and the Washington Post ... just like with obituaries. People die all the time ... yet, we still have obituaries in the New York Times of significant people. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 03:03, 30 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep The more than 30 reliable and verifiable sources from a variety of major national sources, including lengthy coverage in the New York Times Magazine, combined with her book and coverage in other published works, more than clears the Wikipedia notability standard. The murmurs of denial of notability, using tenuous and irrelevant rationalizations for deletion, simply ignore the overwhelming scope and breadth of the sources in the article. Alansohn (talk) 20:07, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
 * please provide one reliably published book that comments on her book. Every one that I looked at was a self published conspiracy theory book. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  21:12, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
 * The only objection you have is your misinterpretation of my statements? Rebut all 30 sources and you might have an argument. Alansohn (talk) 21:39, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Wow, perfect example of the strawman fallacy. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 03:05, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
 * delete or redirect to The arrest and incarceration of Susan Lindauer Per BLP1E three elements should be met for meeting the threshold of a person having a BLP:
 * 1) If reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event. All of the reliable sources, and the "super sources" like the NYT only mention Lindauer with respect to her activities surround her arrest and the subsequent legal proceedings.
 * 2) That person otherwise remains, and is likely to remain, a low-profile individual. While Lindauer appears to want to be heard, that is irrelevant. The sources dictate a person's "profile".  The "strong" sources don't indicate such, and the weak conspiracy-theory sources should be ignored entirely.
 * 3) If the event is not significant or the individual's role was either not substantial or not well documented This is not a significant event, not by a long shot.
 * Two kinds of pork Makin'Bacon 05:53, 29 September 2014 (UTC)


 * BLP1E retort:
 * 1. All the biographical information on her parents, her education, her work as a DC staffer and her work as a journalist, and her antiwar activity, come from reliable sources, especially her 5 page profile in the New York Times magazine. Where else would they be coming from? This is not fiction. 10 biographical facts from 10 sources are mathematically identical to 10 facts from 1 source. Yes, all the sources mention her arrest, just as all the Abraham Lincoln biographies mention his assassination. By your strict reading of BLP1E we would have to delete biographies of living Congressional Medal of Honor winners because of their one act of heroism, and anyone that won the Nobel Prize if they did not have an entry before their win.
 * 2. A self-proclaimed "low-profile individual" doesn't publish an autobiography. A media-proclaimed "low-profile individual" doesn't have more than 30 references in reliable media as well as Google Scholar and Google Books and the current Google News. We have a whole category called Category:Conspiracy theories, they are just as valid as any other topic and the sources used are valid for Wikipedia.
 * 3. The event is significant objectively by the coverage in reliable media, there is no other way to measure it. Subjectively you think it is insignificant. Is your argument really that she played a minor role in her own trip to Baghdad that led to her arrest? Then who played the major role? --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 23:35, 29 September 2014 (UTC)


 * 1) yes there are plenty of sources. However you have failed to address the fact that they are all about one event. 2) she has an AB.  So what?  Has it received any coverage outside of a half sentance mention?  The answer is nyet.  The sources determine everything.   That she seeks attention, doesn't mean she has recevied any outside of the one event. 3) Significant events have massive coverage.  Like 9/11, mass shootings (Columbine,VA tech, Newton, etc), sensationalized crimes.  It's like porn, we know it when we see it.  If it is significant, we would expect most people would at least be aware of the event.  This doesn't even come close.  So there is no way this merits a BLP.  However a simple rename would make the BLP1E issues moot.Two kinds of pork Makin'Bacon 01:26, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Notability states "Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material. There is no requirement for "massive coverage", or we would only cover people and events on the front page of the newspaper. I have addressed it to my satisfaction, and it appears enough people believe it has been addressed so that we have consensus. You are not going to convince me, I am not going to convince you, so lets just let other people have a chance at the discussion ... ok? I think you and I are just cutting and pasting our previous arguments. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 01:50, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Each time someone mentions BLP1E, you ignore the arguments and steer the conversation towards GNG. I'm not trying to convince you anymore, but rather impress upon the closer that no "keep" voters have adequately addressed the the key elements of why this article is not a BLP1E, where I and others have identified why this is BLP1E element by element.  BLP1E trumps GNG. BLP1E says The significance of an event or individual is indicated by how persistent the coverage is in reliable sources. THIS is the standard for significance, not the definition from GNG which you presented..  Using this standard, this event isn't an entrée, appetizer nor an amuse bouché.  It's behind the mint and even the toothpick.Two kinds of pork Makin'Bacon 03:05, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
 * WP:BLP1E also says "" Lindauer is not a low-profile individual, as established by multiple editors above and regardless of whether or not her well-documented attention-seeking behaviour is due to a delusion, so it doesn't matter that she passes GNG for what you call one event. BLP1E simply does not apply here. Ivanvector (talk) 13:52, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Well this is the crux of the matter then, isn't it? All of the support that I see above that Lindauer is not "low profile" is based upon her efforts to get her story out.  I don't see any evidence that the sources are paying her activities attention outside of this "one event".Two kinds of pork Makin'Bacon 15:37, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
 * To the contrary, many people are most interested in her earlier published statement that it was known to U.S. officials that Libya was not responsible for the Lockerbie attack, her claim (with one witness) that she predicted the September 11th attacks, her prediction of how badly the invasion of Iraq would turn out, etc. Wnt (talk) 17:56, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

 * Those people are usually referred to as "crackpots". Should a high quality RS cover these crackpots interest in Lindauer, I would change my vote to keep, provided that we also state this interest is coming from crackpots. We can't and shouldn't state that her visit to Baghdad got a lot of press but then fail to mention it was the crackpot press.   Any "kept" article will need to be zealously watched to keep the crackpot "people deserve to know the truth " edits out of the article.Two kinds of pork Makin'Bacon 20:38, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
 * It is not that simple a division. We have many RSes in the article that do say these things, though a few things (the 9/11 prediction) are treated with some skepticism. Wnt (talk) 20:55, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
 * It is that simple. The sources are not there to go beyond the BLP1E threshold.  Examining the current article, the only "source" that gives Lindauer any serious consideration is a dubious source called Scoop authored by Michael Collins whose bona fides are not established.Two kinds of pork Makin'Bacon 01:12, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Lindauer was published in 1998 in a "Middle East Intelligence Bulletin", then cited in a 2000 Sunday Herald article "Lockerbie: CIA witness gagged by US government". These sources were cited by the NYT and others after the charges were made four years later.  And searching news from 2000 isn't that easy - I think I may have missed other references, given that Lockerbie was a huge news story at the time.  I should add that if you click the "books" link at top, Lindauer seems to be mentioned in a vast array of sources --- the caveat being that if there's any way at all to tell where in a book she's mentioned from Google, it is beyond my knowledge, or indeed if Google hasn't made a persuasive-sounding fake hit out of whole cloth, let alone how to sort hits by publishing date -- but the books include some from pre-2004, e.g. a 2002 book "Painful questions: an analysis of the September 11th attack". Wnt (talk) 08:17, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps there may be reason enough to keep, but sources that haven't been examined are not reliable sources at all. We need at least one editor to have read the source in question. We shouldn't speculate at about the quality or content of unknown sources.Two kinds of pork Makin'Bacon 14:02, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep - There are many reputable sources discussing her arrest and her book, and she has been appearing frequently in certain media to comment on current US affairs since. Sure, these media aren't main stream, at least not in the US, and she might be advancing fringe theories. That is however more reason to have an encyclopedic entry. I expect Wikipedia to give me information on controversial figures. I was looking her up because she appeared on RT, and wanted to find about her background from a different source. Will this entry have to be defended from crackpots? Probably. But there are many articles that fall into that category. Ansgarf (talk) 00:10, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I am sorry, when did Wikipedia become a platform for advancing fringe theories that no one else finds worthy of coverage? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  00:41, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, have you read the article? You have no justification to claim there are no RSes.  And claiming that covering any non officially sanctioned point of view is "advertising", well, that's convenient. Wnt (talk) 07:57, 1 October 2014 (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.