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 no consensus. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 17:21, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Danielle Pletka[edit]

Danielle Pletka (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:BLP, with some overtones of résumé, of a political consultant. This is not based on reliable source coverage about her, but rather cites one news article that glancingly namechecks her existence, one newspaper op-ed where she's the bylined author and not the subject, and one glancing namecheck of her existence in a blog entry. This is not the type of coverage of her that it takes to clear WP:GNG, and nothing claimed here is an automatic pass of any inclusion criterion in the absence of enough coverage of her to clear GNG. Bearcat (talk) 18:35, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 18:43, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete This looks more like a resume than an encyclopedia article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:07, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Johnpacklambert, the way an article "looks" is not a criteria for deletion. Please weigh in on whether or not she is notable. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 00:00, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

She is not notable. The references to her are passing, not substantial citations. For example, one sentence that mentions her in a much longer article on Jesse Helms. This is not the stuff notability is made of.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:51, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• This is not a "resume". Article about this Washington foreign policy wonk has been on WP since 2005, with dozens of editors adding and deleting material as controversies/policy disputes with which she is involved come and go. note' how hits on her WP page gyrate, usually just a few a day - then several thousand on a particular day, quickly settling back to small numbers. It's been that way for years, driven by public interest in her whenever an issue she is involved in hits the news. Having a basic article on the talking heads in D.C. is something our users expect.E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:17, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I've added some sources to the article. Doing a Google News search or a HighBeam search shows that she is featured as a talking head on a lot of news shows, including NPR, FOX, CNN and other stations. However, because she's written a large number of articles (esp for Washington Post), trying to tease through her authored works and her appearances is going to take time. My quick take on her is that she is likely notable. I'd like to have more solid sources in the article before I !vote, though. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 00:03, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • What we need is not articles by her, but articles about her.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:52, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:26, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:26, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:26, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:08, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:08, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:08, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Danielle Pletka has made several recent panel appearances on America's leading public affairs program, Meet the Press, with "notables" like David Brooks, Helene Cooper, Rich Lowry, Nicolle Wallace and Chuck Todd. Somebody at NBC, seasoned news professionals--one assumes--thinks Pletka is "notable". That, in fact, is why I consulted Wikipedia for background information on her. In addition to whatever other supporting evidence corroborates her "notability", this is what Wikipedia is for, right? Surely there isn't a movement afoot to purge individuals from these pages because of their political affiliations (Pletka has "ties" to the American Enterprise Institute). The tone of these comments raises concern. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Earl Clay (talk • contribs) 15:58, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep the problem isn't that there are not ghits, it is that there are too many. We probably haven't figured out the right keywords yet, but there is sufficient solid into in WP:RS to stitch together a proper bio, for example, here is the Jerusalem Post describing her as "a former senior staffer for the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations and current vice president for foreign and defense policy studies at the American Enterprise Institute" before quoting her rather extensively in a recent article on Trump [1]. Wikipedia:Deletion is not cleanup just tag it for tone, sourcing.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:38, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Kudos to User:Megalibrarygirl for the WP:HEYMANN that reliably sources the her career.E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:31, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete -- a promotional CV on a subject with no indications of notability or significance. A "former senior staffer" is an insufficient claim to notability, and so is having provided testimony in Congress. Sourcing is not SIGCOV. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:29, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• There is SIGCOV of her career and policy positions, both in the article and in articles such as this: [2]. Here (COHEN, ELIOT A. "Republican Reincarnation." Foreign Policy, no. 199 (2013): 13-14. [3].), for example is Eliot A. Cohen devoting an entire essay in Foreign Policy to attacking one of her policy positions.E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:05, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Revisiting this, I see that I was right to comment in my iVote above that a plethora of hits makes running searches to check notability tedious. I have expanded and sourced the article somewhat, note that she is described by the Washington Post as "caustic" and "conservative" and that the edit history on the page confirms that people hate her for her political views, and possibly for her "caustic" style. Article can still use improvement, but I do not see any justification for deletion of the article as it now stands.E.M.Gregory (talk) 10:07, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: The article gives pretty clear claims of notability for the subject (her influence on U.S. foreign polity), and at least some of the references are good reliable sources. Actually, it looks like the article was cleaned up significantly during this AfD, with many improved WP:RS added. So, this is a definitive keep. OtterAM (talk) 13:59, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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.