Jill Kelley – Overturn to keep. The vote count here is slightly in favor of overturning, but not by much. The important part, though, is that "overturn" !voters addressed the issue of the closure more, rather than arguing the merits of the article. There is a difference between saying the article is a textbook case of BLP1E (discussing the article itself) and saying that an admin cannot overrule a large majority of policy-based arguments (discussing the AfD closure). – King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 12:49, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Jill Kelley (talk`\|`edit`\|`history`\|`logs`\|`links`\|`watch) (XfD`\|`restore) Overturn (see User talk:Drmies#Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jill Kelley for full reasons at closing admin's talk page) because: In the AfD there were 28 Keep votes, vs 4 Delete votes (including the nominator) and 5 Redirects -- that is almost a two thirds majority to Keep the article by a very wide and clear margin. The vote was not a "referendum" on the merits of WP:BLP1E, the majority of 28 editors who voted Keep clearly over-rode that and cited good reasons why the subject is now WP:N and stands in it's own right as an important subject. The closing admin's reasoning is incomprehensible and deprecating, quote: "the moment she has a TV show and a movie contract we can undelete the history" -- since when is having a "TV show" or a "movie contract" a criterion for notability? Jill Kelley now receives massive media scrutiny as more details continually emerge about her and her family's role/s in current US politics. Jill Kelley has ignited a massive operation by all the major US intelligence and spy agencies that went from tracking down who was cyber-stalking her to massive spy and FBI work to uncover what else was discovered from HER emails that ultimately involved and reached the top military and law enforcement officials of the USA and could have derailed the 2012 presidential race were it not held back by the spy-masters and law officers. She has played a key role in bringing down the head of the CIA, a former four star General David Petraeus -- they are suspected of having an affair of their own. Jill Kelley was in heavy email and personal correspondence with the US Commander in Afghanistan General John R. Allen and has wrecked his career and future prospects -- they are also suspected of having another affair of their own. Not to mention her role in undoing the life and work of Petraeus's official biographer Paula Broadwell as she (Jill Kelley) became the object of a fatal and fateful obsession for Paula Broadwell, that also involved and then ruined the career of a senior FBI agent Frederick W. Humphries II now under investigation by the FBI, and now as the American and world media digs deeper into Jill Kelley's web of connections with senior American politicians, including meetings at the White House, her and her family's life and web of connections are being scrutinized and reported. She also had official clearance from the US State Department to be a "social ambassador" to the highest echelons of officers at CENTCOM one of America's most sensitive and secret operations, and she is an honorary consul for South Korea, proving her political value and connections that are still being investigated and emerging -- she ain't no ordinary "socialite" and one time wonder! And all this has only become public information since November 9th, 2012 when this story hit the headlines with Petraeus's resignation -- a mere 11 days ago yet the nominator and closing admin think it's somehow ok to make judgments now, in less than a week by not allowing this subject and article to develop in its own right based on the massive media coverage it's getting right now, and more US congressional hearings and investigations are sure to follow, as this is a major subject. Imagine if only 11 days after the Lewinsky scandal broke into the news, that the name of Linda Tripp would not have made it to WP article status because she never got her own "TV Show". At a minimum the article deserved to be left as a bio-stub and under-construction with appropriate templates to indicate that, because it's part of a new unfolding story, but it was a lot better than that already when it was zapped in haste. IZAK (talk) 15:50, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply] Izak, would you please convert your list of reasons that dominates a paragraph into a numbered list? It's somewhat difficult to find out what needs to be paid attention to Hasteur (talk) 16:30, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply] Done. IZAK (talk) 17:18, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply] Thank you. Drmies (talk) 17:37, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply] Note that Linda Tripp is now at AfD. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 22:17, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply] Truly absurd, it must surely be a violation of WP:POINT and WP:DONOTDISRUPT because at this point in time it is out of reality, as I have indicated at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Linda Tripp and it's also a balatant attempt at historical revisionism by minimizing something that is universally accepted as major by now. Another example of misapplying WP policies to challenge historical facts. Thanks, IZAK (talk) 01:25, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply] "Incomprehensible and deprecating"--thanks! What am I deprecating here? One thing, and one thing alone: the tendency to turn Wikipedia into the news. Drmies (talk) 16:33, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply] Wait: "they are also suspected of having another affair of their own"--that's a reason for overturning a deletion discussion? Who's speaking here--Perez Hilton? Drmies (talk) 16:34, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply] If that is the criteria now, when can I expect my own article? Niteshift36 (talk) 16:35, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply] Fully endorse deletion. The closing admin was correct that this is a BLP1E. Had I seen the AfD earlier, that's exactly how I'd have !voted. "Social ambassador"? Honorary consul? Maybe she was prom queen too. Niteshift36 (talk) 16:34, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply] Hi Niteshift: Not sure why, but you obviously want to mention silly things. Jill Kelley has had deep relationships with top Generals that have resulted in their demise. CIA Director David Petraeus has had to quit, she started it, it is suspected they were also having an affair. Top Obama officials wrestled with what they found in her computer/s and its related content in Paula Broadwell's computer/s that involved the heads of the CIA, NSA, FBI, Justice Department, and Department of Defense heads wrangling with decisions of who to inform and who will be forced to resign all stemming from lengthy email correspondence unearthed from Kelley's computer. There are 30,000 (that's thirty thousand) pages of correspondence between Kelley and General Allen. They are also suspected of having an affair and it has ruined his chances of promotion to head NATO. Kelley had access to the White House, with her sister Natalie Khawam and together they were involved with major politicians such as Senators John Kerry and Marco Rubio. So feel free to belittle and make fun of this important political and national security subject that is now causing major waves in the USA as if it was a Saturday Night Live show, but please don't expect everyone else to buy into such a narrow perspective. Thanks, IZAK (talk) 17:15, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply] Yes, I agree, "social ambassador" and honorary consul are silly things, but it was you that put them forth as reasons, not I. As for my "narrow perspective"....well, I guess we'll see, won't we. Niteshift36 (talk) 17:19, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply] Her positions gave her access to powerful men, after all, what was Monica Lewinsky only a measly intern at the White House? but that is how serious matters grow out of hidden sexual affairs and how politicians and famous people stumble and tumble. But in this case, her social status went further than just rumored affairs reported in the media, but social involvement with Generals David Petraeus and John R. Allen who have been ruined by her documented involvement with them. No small matter. IZAK (talk) 17:24, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply] "access to pwerful men"? Once again, you have, for the umpteenth time, asserted that notability can be obtained by being around notable people. Is this like fame osmosis or something? Niteshift36 (talk) 17:46, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply] Hi Niteshift: How about a little subtlety. Give me some credit. I am not postulating that the house-butler or maid or golfing buddy or aide de camp who has regular access to Generals David Petraeus and John R. Allen should get WP articles. We are talking about something more focused and specific here, a woman and her sister who had POLITICAL and PROFESSIONAL access to two top US generals, enough that Jill Kelley conducted a 30,000 email pages inappropriate correspondence with one (General Allen) has resulted in his name being stained and his career put on ice, and that came about as a research by the FBI into her emails resulted in the fall of Paula Broadwell and General David Petraeus who was the head of the CIA. These personalities are interlinked. Let me ask you, if the articles about Jill Kelley and her sister Natalie Khawam (who was equally close to Generals Petraeus and Allen, they wrote letters to a federal judge on her behalf on their official stationary) are "deleted," then would you say that all mention of them should be removed and excised from WP due to "notability not being 'inherited' "? If they are already worthy of lengthy mention in the David Petraeus, Paula Broadwell, John R. Allen and Petraeus scandal articles maybe in some others too, so at what point are they worthy, or not, of their own articles rather than having the information about them spread out over five other big articles, because it makes perfect sense to have one central main article where that subject is treated as one subject and not spread over five others only. You see, this is not about some random person gaining "notability" by spending a little time with a famous man or two, it is about key players in their own right with their own minds and own agendas in one drama, I guess like the 6 Wives of Henry VIII who are famous for marrying Henry VIII and are not accused of "notability is not inherited". And yes, the Petraeus affair and its actors is a sex drama as well as a political and military and national security drama, we did not create that, the players in this drama did, all WP can do is describe and explain what happened and not suddernly turn prissy prim and say in a snotty way, ow shucks, that's "yellow journalism" when Petraeus himself quit because had an affair and said so himself. IZAK (talk) 18:25, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply] Aside from the fact that you've A) completely missed the point and B) completely misrepresented the actual argument here, your incessant wikilinking is becoming a bother. I'm done with you. Niteshift36 (talk) 18:49, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply] Just to make things clear, though I think that he who hath ears to hear would have understood: "the moment she has a TV show and a movie contract we can undelete the history" means that she is not, at the moment, independently notable. If she has a TV show and a movie contract, or does anything else that's not directly related to the affair, she's independently notable, clearly. Drmies (talk) 17:37, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply] NOTE See related Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Natalie Khawam. Thank you, IZAK (talk) 17:15, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply] Endorse Deletion - policy trumps opinion. --Nounique names 17:11, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply] Overturn I would have voted to delete the article per BLP1E. However this is not clear under our policy. Sometimes one event is important enough to create long term notability (e.g. Monica Lewinsky). This was a judgement call and therefore the consensus must rule the result. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 17:37, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply] A single event could be, but it takes time to demonstrate the enduring notability. Not 2 weeks. Niteshift36 (talk) 17:46, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply] True, but I don't know if it is reasonable or required by policy to ask that we wait a few years before starting an article even for a BLP. Editors will most be interested in working on an article while the story is breaking. A better way of dealing with this issue - I think - is to let the article be, and when it turns out that there is no long-term notability, then nominate it for deletion.--brew crewer (yada, yada) 17:55, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply] Unlike Lewinsky, who actually had the affair, Kelly is more of a flirt who angered the actual mistress. Niteshift36 (talk) 18:00, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply] That's a reasonable position to take and probably mine as well. However your or my judgement call does not mandate deletion. This is something that is resolved by a consensus of judgement calls and the consensus was absolutely clear in favor of keeping the article. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 18:03, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply] Endorse deletion Effectively this is WP:ONEEVENT - it's the people who she slept with who happen to be notable, and not her. No, that's not being sexist - those individuals were notable before sleeping with her. AFD is WP:NOTAVOTE - it's policy that matters, and you cannot twist policies so badly (especially BLP policies) to even consider this person as meeting them. As such, the deletion was as per policy (✉→BWilkins←✎) 17:50, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply] Excuse me but it is far from established that the subject here has had an affair, never mind multiple ones. The subject has certainly not admitted that. I should think someone citing BLP would be more circumspect about tossing out claims like that so matter-of-factly.--Brian Dell (talk) 22:58, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply] Endorse deletion As per Bwilkins comment, "effectively this is WP:ONEEVENT - it's the people who she slept with who happen to be notable, and not her" - she does not warrant a wikipedia biography of her not notable life, add the details about her to the notable peoples life stories. - Youreallycan 17:58, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply] Overturn and turkey-slap closing admin A closing administrator's job is to interpret consensus, not impose his own opinion, just as a World Series umpire couldn't have declared the Detroit Tigers the winner with an argument that "they were really the better team". Drmies didn't evaluate consensus; he cast a vote and arrogated veto power over every one of the dozens of opinions that addressed the BLP1E issue explicitly or implicitly. The "endorse" opinions here also have the sad aspect of being ex post facto AfD votes and blandly repeating "Effectively this is WP:ONEEVENT" does not address the issue with the improper close. It is closes like this that make Wikipedia a laughingstock in which the arbitrary biases of one admin override the considered opinions of every participant in the discussion. Alansohn (talk) 19:16, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply] Oh yeah, it's AfD closures that make Wikipedia a laughingstock. Niteshift36 (talk) 19:31, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply] @User:Alansohn - WP:Consensus is not a head count , its a well considered interpretation of the deletion discussion in regards to all of EN wikpedia policy and guidelines as was this close decision - Youreallycan 19:36, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply] right. And when one does so, it is especially necessary to do it right, with great attention to the real situation, not the technicalities. DGG ( talk ) 19:48, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply] overturn and let anyone who wants bring a second AfD. I can excuse the AfD nomination as being done on Nov.13, but by the 20th when the close was made it was blindingly clear that she is now a figure with an historical role. The close said "this is exactly what BLP `1E is intended to cover". Rather, he should have said "This is exactly what BLP 1E is not intended to cover. Even in the close, he admits substantial worldwide coverage. The coverage is not about mere tabloid fodder--what might be tabloid if it were about insignificant individuals who happened to get a great deal of attention by chance becomes major news when it is about significant people who get a great deal of coverage because of the political significance. She was indeed not the key significant figure, but she was directly involved as one of the three key participants. She is not low profile, and, having set off a chain of major events, she's a major player. The basic principle behind all of BLP is DO NO HARM,and certainly no conceivable additional harm can be done by this, after what the press has done. WP:OSTRICH is used to mean people who nominate people of things for deletion because they haven't heard of thinge; but it should more properly be used for WP being a collective ostrich, refusing to include what all the world knows. DGG ( talk ) 19:48, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply] Endorse deletion - A correct application of WP:BLP1E. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:08, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply] Overturn the deletion of the history, but endorse redirection to Petraeus_scandal#Jill_Kelley. BLP1E is not a good reason for deletion. It is clear there is support for coverage of this person, but there is not (yet) good reason for a stand-alone-article. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 20:18, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply] That redirect already exists. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:48, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply] The page history should be available behind the redirect. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply] I reviewed this again, given the large number of straight "Overturn" !votes, reading the AfD more carefully and the cache copy of the article. I read a rough concenus as being a straight "keep" within reasonable discretion, and a mandated "merge and redirect" at a stretch. The cached version is a weak BLP article. Having said that, I don't think there are further BLP problems requiring action. The most relevant policy/guideline failed is Wikipedia:Notability_(people)#People_notable_for_only_one_event, which reads to me as clearly supporting the content being moved to an article covering the event, not the person. However, closing the discussion this way is a stretch, and may even be called a WP:Supervote, but not decidedly. If the AfD is closed as a mandated "merge and redirect" (history intact), then the door is open for a spinout article, iff the Petraeus_scandal becomes too large and Petraeus_scandal#Jill_Kelley is a major section (which today it is not). My !vote is for Overturn (Merge and redirect to Petraeus_scandal#Jill_Kelley). --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:28, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply] Overturn BLP1E is not a CSD, if the closing admin had a dissenting opinion it should have been expressed as a "delete" vote, not as a unilateral decision. As I mentioned at that discussion, I don't see how someone can look at that article and see BLP1E as applying. "It is not the case that the event is significant and the individual's role within it is substantial and well-documented—as in the case of John Hinckley, Jr., who shot President Ronald Reagan in 1981." A socialite that exchanges sexual emails with the soon-to-be head of the NATO forces and former commander of the Afghan War, causes the head of the CIA and previous commander of the Afghan War to resign days before his testimony to Congress about an attack on Americans in Libya, and days before the new commander of the Afghan War was to be promoted; a woman who causes an FBI agent to become so obsessive that he is taken off of her case, becomes afraid for her own safety after a noted journalist and author sends threatening emails... how is that "one event", how are those events not significant, how is her role in those events not significant, and how is that significance not well documented? BLP1E seems like it should apply, but does not. Regardless, it was a bad close, and opinions should be comments, not deletions. Also, as I mentioned in the discussion, the creator was not notified. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 21:19, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply] Endorse, just because someone has been mentioned in many news reports doesn't mean she is notable, as it's all stemming from the one event. These sorts of situations are why we have BLP1E. Redirecting the page while keeping the history is reasonable, because "Jill Kelley" will be a search term. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 22:09, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply] Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. IZAK (talk) 01:42, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply] Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. IZAK (talk) 01:51, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply] Endorse Deletion: Someone who may or may not have had an affair with someone and called the cops on the media saying they were an ambassador or something is not notable and BLP1E is in full effect on this one. Good deletion Drmies. :) - Neutralhomer • Talk • 02:20, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply] Overturn I have the utmost respect for Drmies as an administrator, but I wholeheartedly agree with both IZAD and Alansohn (but hitting Drmies with a turkey would be out of line)...the consensus was to keep, but instead of interpreting said consensus, Drmies imposed his interpretation of WP:BLP1E. I would at the very least request a relisting of the AfD, but feel that keeping the article as is would be the best option. Go Phightins! 04:02, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply] overturn Keep voters were aware of BLP1E, considered it, and decided that the level of notability was high enough in this case that that wasn't relevant here. Admins' job is not to impose their own viewpoints on a clear consensus about a difficult to decide policy. There's a reasonable argument here for BLP1E being relevant. It was considered and rejected in the AfD. JoshuaZ (talk) 04:28, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply] Comment I see people saying that honorary consul is a silly thing here in this discussion. You should be aware that thia is a real position, and has real diplomatic functions, so is not a silly thing. Though being an honorary consul does not make one notable (just as being a member of a diplomatic corps doesn't make one notable), it is not a silly thing. -- 70.24.250.26 (talk) 07:59, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply] Overturn - Consensus to keep in view of the WP:BLP1E policy was clear. As for the BLP1E policy, the closer was wrong on several levels. First, as I posted in the AfD, Kelley put herself in the public spotlight eight years ago when she was featured on a U.S. national television show.St Petersburg Times January 7, 2003. Her life story has been covered in detail since at least 2003 and biography coverage of her life from the television show was followed by coverage of her life in Tribune January 15, 2003 (at http://nl.newsbank.com/sites/tt/ , Search for: "TASTY TELEVISION" AND date(01/13/2003 to 1/17/2003)), St Petersburg Times January 15, 2003, St Petersburg Times October 8, 2003. There's in-depth biography information again beginning on Philadelphia Inquirer November 11, 2012 and many other sources through Associated Press November 13, 2012. She was not a low profile individual before the Petraeus scandal and the coverage of her life due to the Petraeus scandal is well beyond the context of the Petraeus scandal, so the article restrictions of WP:BLP1E do not apply. These were all brought out in the AfD discussion by long term editors. There is no justification in the close for the failure to apply the requirements of WP:BLP1E or to impose that closer's own viewpoints on a clear consensus regarding the WP:BLP1E policy. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 12:38, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply] Endorse Deletion: (note: I originally nominated the article for deletion, so I do have a bias here.) That being said, I fully agree with the points made by Drmies, Ed, Bwilkins, etc. Afd is not a vote and in cases where one side makes a very weak argument (as did many Keep voters) their numerical strength is not the concern of the closing Admin. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:31, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply] Overturn with a side of trout- Numbers, and more importantly WP:BLP1E (as has been alaborated above, so I'm not going to re-hash) do not support deletion. Umbralcorax (talk) 18:18, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply] Overturn The close misrepresented the facts of the discussion in an outrageous way, claiming that "only a few" keeps addressed the question of BLP1E whereas "a number of deletes" was supposedly larger. It seems apparent that this misrepresentation was contrived to arrive at a result which the closer preferred. Determination of rough consensus requires that the closer should "be as impartial as is possible" and this was not done. Warden (talk) 20:19, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply] Colonel, you must either doubt my good faith or my competency, or both. Or you suffer from an illness of your rhetorical gland. Drmies (talk) 03:57, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply] Endorse deletion It appears process was properly followed. MBisanz ^talk 03:41, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply] Overturn to keep or no consensus, not a BLP1E case, we have indepth biography information and the individual's role within the event is substantial and well-documented. I'm fine with the merging in the "event article" but given the large consensus BLP1E could not be misinterpreted and used to justify an outcome that goes against the discussion. Cavarrone (talk) 07:25, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply] Overturn to keep. BLP1E is indeed policy, and rightfully so, but per WP:WI1E and WP:WIALPI (both of which I wrote), it's a bridge too far to apply them to this case--certainly too far to close against a numerical consensus like that based on a disputed interpretation of policy. Those who showed up to the AfD gave some very compelling arguments why 1E did not apply, which should have carried the day in a dispassionate close. Jclemens (talk) 08:51, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply] You can't reasonably analogize her role to that of the man who assassinated Ronald Reagan, the listed exception to BLP1E. She's more of an ancillary character to this scandal; petreaus and broadwell are the central figures. The first essay you wrote says things like "When an individual is covered for a single event, and the spotlight follows that individual into his or her new endeavors they should still have an article. Here, she hasn't gone on to have a tv show or a movie contract, as the closing admin astutely noted, and in contrast to the supposedly similar other women like Monica. As far as your second article, I dont really think that the minor news coverage and one Food Fight show from kind of a while ago are anying other than trivial items per WP:BIO. I certainly don't think they make her "high profile." This all seems a bit misguided. Who cares if there were 7 times as many keep votes in the AfD if it's not a vote? There were a large number of "omg obviously she should have an article because this scandal is kind of a big deal" votes. To the extent the keepers mentioned blp1e at all, it was to say "obviously her role is substantial." That's not obvious. I could be convinced she qualifies, but not if the only example is the Reagan assassination. Basically, I feel like yes there were a lot of keep votes but they weren't very convincing. Isn't the role of the closing admin to weigh the strength of he arguments rather than to count the votes? I don't really see how you can say the result was obviously wrong from either a substantive or process perspective. And this isn't just supposed to be another round of AfD, is it?AgnosticAphid talk 20:01, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply] Comment and I ask those who say merely endorse because of BLP1E to explain why the exceptions to it listed by JClemens, and those arguments based on very extensive coverage and on historic significance, do not apply. DGG ( talk ) 17:46, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply] Overturn to keep. There are far less notable people in Widipedia, i.e. Eunice Penix, one of five commissioners in a small town, Dade City FL. Tupelo the typo fixer (talk) 18:59, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply] WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS is usually not that persuasive. Niteshift36 (talk) 23:10, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply] Thank you for taking care of that other stuff. I really appreciate it. Tupelo the typo fixer (talk) 21:29, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply] Overturn to keep, "stylistically" because giving the thumbs up to overriding a 2 to 1 consensus (the raw "votes" in the original review were even more lopsided) to keep suggests to closing admins that consensus is not just not determinative but a peripheral consideration, and "substantively" because a keep does not preclude another deletion review a year from now. I have yet to see anyone calling for deletion explain why the sources describing the subject as "at the center" of the scandal or as a "central figure" should be dismissed. BLP1E states clearly that if "the event was significant and the individual's role within it was substantial and well-documented" a BLP1E rationale has not been made out. Are there any sources at all describing this subject as a "minor player" or peripheral to the scandal? Why are there standalone "Who is Jill Kelley?" stories about the subject if the subject is only a notable under another topic? I am not contending here that the subject is notable for all time. WP:NOTNEWS merely limits application of the principle that notability varies with time, it does not completely eliminate the principle. The primary problem with this deletion is that it was premature. Again and again I see people interfering with current events articles by expending time and energy trying to get them deleted at an early stage when it could all be handled far more smoothly if people would wait a few months when public interest will have waned to a negligible level (as it should if it's truly a BLP1E).--Brian Dell (talk) 23:20, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply] Overturn. Normally I defer to the closer's discretion, but a close against the local consensus in the discussion requires a clear support from the wider consensus embodied by our polices. While the broad policy of BIO1E/BLP1E is supported by strong consensus throughout the community, at the outer edges the application of those policies is murkier. In my opinion, the case to distinguish this article as a valid exception to BIO/BLP1E was advanced well enough that closing against local consensus was not justified. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 23:31, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply] Overturn -- Admins do not get to substitute their judgement for the judgement of other editors in cases of multi-factor application of policy such a this -- Xymmax is correct. Alanscottwalker (talk) 03:04, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply] Overturn. If BLP1E were to be applied by unilateral administrative action, it would be a speedy deletion ground. But the application of this policy to the facts is notoriously contentious, and a matter for consensus. There are of course cases in AfDs where an admin could go either way, but this just wasn't one of them on my reading of the discussion. Send it back to AfD in a few months when she'll be Jill Who? and it'll rightfully be deleted then. --Mkativerata (talk) 09:02, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply] Overturn BLP1E has to be more subtly read than some are arguing. The fact of an individual being notable for only "one event" should not lead inexorably to a conclusion that the biographical article should be deleted. Readers want to scrutinize the people responsible for the role that they played in significant events. When "one event" is the cause for an article, we should be exercising restraint in what we include in that article. If the person's and the event's importance is established in sources, I think an article, written with restraint, is probably called for. Bus stop (talk) 04:13, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply] NOTIFICATION: WP:VPP has received a notification of the discussions that relate to this page and the policy of WP:BLP1E. See Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#How to apply WP:BLP1E or not [1]. Thank you, IZAK (talk) 20:18, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply] Endorse deletion Just because we can document the non-notable aspect of someone's life outside of one notable event does not make for a good encyclopedic article if the only "highlight" is being part of an event that portrays that person negatively. There was no misapplication of BLP1E here - just because the majority !voted to keep, the admid properly cited the BLP concerns outweighing the majority - this is completely allowable, particularly when BLP policy is being talked about. --MASEM (t) 20:26, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply] Endorse. The rationale given for deletion was spot-on and the point - particularly in the face of over-excitedness regarding a current news story - is not to count votes, but to weigh arguments (in this discussion as much as the last one). The acid-test here is whether there would be any encyclopaedic value in standalone bio enabling people to read about Kelley outside of the context of the events that have made her famous. The answer to that is obviously no - there is no-one in the world who will want to find out about this person whilst not giving two hoots about her emails. Formerip (talk) 20:39, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply] Hi Formerip: There is no way that the Petraeus scandal article could and should contain the growing and important details about the five main players so far: Jill Kelley, Paula Broadwell; David Petraeus; John R. Allen; Natalie Khawam. See for example this latest New York Times article about the five of them and their uniqueness: Second Act of a Scandal: Cue the Superlawyers and the Spinmasters (Published: November 20, 2012) with important photos of and information about all five. Let editors who are able and willing to develop these key articles do their job instead of standing in the way of WP performing its role as a reliable encyclopedia in this vital subject. Thanks, IZAK (talk) 01:34, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply] Endorse. I probably would not have closed it this way, but, bearing in mind that admin discretion is at its maximum when BLPs are involved, I cannot bring myself to say that this close falls into the "unrefrigerated dead fish" category either. I think it's within admin discretion, though perhaps barely so. T. Canens (talk) 21:26, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply] Overturn, this is a supervote. Consensus is clear here, and I've closed more than one AfD while holding my nose at the result. Admins are there to uphold consensus, not override it. It's not a case of just abstaining from nose-counting, either (which I actually would support), but a case where many editors explicitly disagreed that this was a BLP1E case, and explained why. This is BLP over-enthusiasm, and while the motives may be commendable, the outcome is not and must be overturned. Admins are here to support the community, not overrule it, and this is not within the reasonable realm of discretion. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 01:37, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply] Endorse. Stalwart111 says it best here. If this one event had not happened, Jill Kelley would not have an article. Ish dar ian 09:04, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply] Endorse the original closure of delete. WP:BLP1E is applicable. Coverage in Petraeus scandal is adequate and more appropriate than a separate article on an otherwise non-notable living person. DocTree (ʞlɐʇ·cont) Join WER 14:01, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply] Overturn to keep. BLP1E is matter of degree, not black and white. I this case the admin did not judge consensus of the AfD on the matter, but supervoted. Tijfo098 (talk) 10:55, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply] Overturn to keep and ~~trout~~ ~~barracuda~~ whale closing admin This is a textbook and appalling case of supervote, and of utter disregard of obvious users' consensus. I am shocked a vaguely experienced user, let alone an admin, could even think of closing in such a blatantly disruptive way. If such an incident repeats, Drmies should be sanctioned. --Cyclopia ^talk 17:41, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply] Endorse - as much of the keep votes were crap from SPAs or based on "its in the news!" dribble. There was no effective argument mounted against WP:BLP1E. Well within closer's discretion. Tarc (talk) 19:44, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply] Overturn to keep per the resounding consensus in the AFD. While AFD is not (simply) a vote, that maxim is not an excuse for disregarding such a clear expression of community sentiment. BLP1E, as policy, does not dictate outcomes, but sets out three standards governing the exercise of community discretion. And, by its own terms, BLP1E should not apply here: "WP:BLP1E should be applied only to biographies of low-profile individuals." Low-profile individuals do not receive sustained coverage in national newspapers of record; Kelley has. The artless manner in which many keep !votes invoke this principle does not justify summarily discounting them. A useful analogy might be Alexander Butterfield, or perhaps Frank Wills. The closer's action substituted his own judgment under policy standards for the community's, and was therefore an illegitimate supervote. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 00:36, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply] Maintain status quo. I can see an argument for an article here, although I think the needs are better served by a redirect as now exists. However, having read the deleted article, I think it is very poor and a BLP violation and should not be undeleted. There is simply no need to dredge up all of those ancient links in order to source trivial aspects of a private citizen's private life, nor should portions of the article be sourced to blogs or Youtube videos. The information currently linked to from the redirect is about what should exist; whether it is a section in a longer article, or a separate article, does not seem to me to be a big deal. Chick Bowen 06:11, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply] Comment That's a pretty skewed view. I've looked at the deleted article, too, and while it has one link to Youtube (I see none to blogs?), it also has sources directly about her in the New York Times, USA Today, U.S. News, and the Washington Post. Mind you, these are articles directly about her with her as the main subject, containing her name in the headline, they're not trivial mentions or name drops. And these are hardly low-quality, tabloid-trash sources, they're generally regarded as perfectly acceptable. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 09:32, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Jill Kelley – Overturn to keep. The vote count here is slightly in favor of overturning, but not by much. The important part, though, is that "overturn" !voters addressed the issue of the closure more, rather than arguing the merits of the article. There is a difference between saying the article is a textbook case of BLP1E (discussing the article itself) and saying that an admin cannot overrule a large majority of policy-based arguments (discussing the AfD closure). – King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 12:49, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.

Overturn (see User talk:Drmies#Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jill Kelley for full reasons at closing admin's talk page) because:

In the AfD there were 28 Keep votes, vs 4 Delete votes (including the nominator) and 5 Redirects -- that is almost a two thirds majority to Keep the article by a very wide and clear margin.
The vote was not a "referendum" on the merits of WP:BLP1E, the majority of 28 editors who voted Keep clearly over-rode that and cited good reasons why the subject is now WP:N and stands in it's own right as an important subject.
The closing admin's reasoning is incomprehensible and deprecating, quote: "the moment she has a TV show and a movie contract we can undelete the history" -- since when is having a "TV show" or a "movie contract" a criterion for notability?
Jill Kelley now receives massive media scrutiny as more details continually emerge about her and her family's role/s in current US politics.
Jill Kelley has ignited a massive operation by all the major US intelligence and spy agencies that went from tracking down who was cyber-stalking her to massive spy and FBI work to uncover what else was discovered from HER emails that ultimately involved and reached the top military and law enforcement officials of the USA and could have derailed the 2012 presidential race were it not held back by the spy-masters and law officers.
She has played a key role in bringing down the head of the CIA, a former four star General David Petraeus -- they are suspected of having an affair of their own.
Jill Kelley was in heavy email and personal correspondence with the US Commander in Afghanistan General John R. Allen and has wrecked his career and future prospects -- they are also suspected of having another affair of their own.
Not to mention her role in undoing the life and work of Petraeus's official biographer Paula Broadwell as she (Jill Kelley) became the object of a fatal and fateful obsession for Paula Broadwell, that
also involved and then ruined the career of a senior FBI agent Frederick W. Humphries II now under investigation by the FBI, and
now as the American and world media digs deeper into Jill Kelley's web of connections with senior American politicians, including meetings at the White House, her and her family's life and web of connections are being scrutinized and reported.
She also had official clearance from the US State Department to be a "social ambassador" to the highest echelons of officers at CENTCOM one of America's most sensitive and secret operations, and she is an honorary consul for South Korea, proving her political value and connections that are still being investigated and emerging -- she ain't no ordinary "socialite" and one time wonder!
And all this has only become public information since November 9th, 2012 when this story hit the headlines with Petraeus's resignation -- a mere 11 days ago yet the nominator and closing admin think it's somehow ok to make judgments now, in less than a week by not allowing this subject and article to develop in its own right based on the massive media coverage it's getting right now, and more US congressional hearings and investigations are sure to follow, as this is a major subject.
Imagine if only 11 days after the Lewinsky scandal broke into the news, that the name of Linda Tripp would not have made it to WP article status because she never got her own "TV Show".
At a minimum the article deserved to be left as a bio-stub and under-construction with appropriate templates to indicate that, because it's part of a new unfolding story, but it was a lot better than that already when it was zapped in haste. IZAK (talk) 15:50, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Izak, would you please convert your list of reasons that dominates a paragraph into a numbered list? It's somewhat difficult to find out what needs to be paid attention to Hasteur (talk) 16:30, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Done. IZAK (talk) 17:18, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Drmies (talk) 17:37, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note that Linda Tripp is now at AfD. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 22:17, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Truly absurd, it must surely be a violation of WP:POINT and WP:DONOTDISRUPT because at this point in time it is out of reality, as I have indicated at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Linda Tripp and it's also a balatant attempt at historical revisionism by minimizing something that is universally accepted as major by now. Another example of misapplying WP policies to challenge historical facts. Thanks, IZAK (talk) 01:25, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Incomprehensible and deprecating"--thanks! What am I deprecating here? One thing, and one thing alone: the tendency to turn Wikipedia into the news. Drmies (talk) 16:33, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Wait: "they are also suspected of having another affair of their own"--that's a reason for overturning a deletion discussion? Who's speaking here--Perez Hilton? Drmies (talk) 16:34, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If that is the criteria now, when can I expect my own article? Niteshift36 (talk) 16:35, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fully endorse deletion. The closing admin was correct that this is a BLP1E. Had I seen the AfD earlier, that's exactly how I'd have !voted. "Social ambassador"? Honorary consul? Maybe she was prom queen too. Niteshift36 (talk) 16:34, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Niteshift: Not sure why, but you obviously want to mention silly things. Jill Kelley has had deep relationships with top Generals that have resulted in their demise. CIA Director David Petraeus has had to quit, she started it, it is suspected they were also having an affair. Top Obama officials wrestled with what they found in her computer/s and its related content in Paula Broadwell's computer/s that involved the heads of the CIA, NSA, FBI, Justice Department, and Department of Defense heads wrangling with decisions of who to inform and who will be forced to resign all stemming from lengthy email correspondence unearthed from Kelley's computer. There are 30,000 (that's thirty thousand) pages of correspondence between Kelley and General Allen. They are also suspected of having an affair and it has ruined his chances of promotion to head NATO. Kelley had access to the White House, with her sister Natalie Khawam and together they were involved with major politicians such as Senators John Kerry and Marco Rubio. So feel free to belittle and make fun of this important political and national security subject that is now causing major waves in the USA as if it was a Saturday Night Live show, but please don't expect everyone else to buy into such a narrow perspective. Thanks, IZAK (talk) 17:15, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I agree, "social ambassador" and honorary consul are silly things, but it was you that put them forth as reasons, not I. As for my "narrow perspective"....well, I guess we'll see, won't we. Niteshift36 (talk) 17:19, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Her positions gave her access to powerful men, after all, what was Monica Lewinsky only a measly intern at the White House? but that is how serious matters grow out of hidden sexual affairs and how politicians and famous people stumble and tumble. But in this case, her social status went further than just rumored affairs reported in the media, but social involvement with Generals David Petraeus and John R. Allen who have been ruined by her documented involvement with them. No small matter. IZAK (talk) 17:24, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"access to pwerful men"? Once again, you have, for the umpteenth time, asserted that notability can be obtained by being around notable people. Is this like fame osmosis or something? Niteshift36 (talk) 17:46, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Niteshift: How about a little subtlety. Give me some credit. I am not postulating that the house-butler or maid or golfing buddy or aide de camp who has regular access to Generals David Petraeus and John R. Allen should get WP articles. We are talking about something more focused and specific here, a woman and her sister who had POLITICAL and PROFESSIONAL access to two top US generals, enough that Jill Kelley conducted a 30,000 email pages inappropriate correspondence with one (General Allen) has resulted in his name being stained and his career put on ice, and that came about as a research by the FBI into her emails resulted in the fall of Paula Broadwell and General David Petraeus who was the head of the CIA. These personalities are interlinked. Let me ask you, if the articles about Jill Kelley and her sister Natalie Khawam (who was equally close to Generals Petraeus and Allen, they wrote letters to a federal judge on her behalf on their official stationary) are "deleted," then would you say that all mention of them should be removed and excised from WP due to "notability not being 'inherited' "? If they are already worthy of lengthy mention in the David Petraeus, Paula Broadwell, John R. Allen and Petraeus scandal articles maybe in some others too, so at what point are they worthy, or not, of their own articles rather than having the information about them spread out over five other big articles, because it makes perfect sense to have one central main article where that subject is treated as one subject and not spread over five others only. You see, this is not about some random person gaining "notability" by spending a little time with a famous man or two, it is about key players in their own right with their own minds and own agendas in one drama, I guess like the 6 Wives of Henry VIII who are famous for marrying Henry VIII and are not accused of "notability is not inherited". And yes, the Petraeus affair and its actors is a sex drama as well as a political and military and national security drama, we did not create that, the players in this drama did, all WP can do is describe and explain what happened and not suddernly turn prissy prim and say in a snotty way, ow shucks, that's "yellow journalism" when Petraeus himself quit because had an affair and said so himself. IZAK (talk) 18:25, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Aside from the fact that you've A) completely missed the point and B) completely misrepresented the actual argument here, your incessant wikilinking is becoming a bother. I'm done with you. Niteshift36 (talk) 18:49, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just to make things clear, though I think that he who hath ears to hear would have understood: "the moment she has a TV show and a movie contract we can undelete the history" means that she is not, at the moment, independently notable. If she has a TV show and a movie contract, or does anything else that's not directly related to the affair, she's independently notable, clearly. Drmies (talk) 17:37, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE See related Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Natalie Khawam. Thank you, IZAK (talk) 17:15, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse Deletion - policy trumps opinion. --Nounique names 17:11, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn I would have voted to delete the article per BLP1E. However this is not clear under our policy. Sometimes one event is important enough to create long term notability (e.g. Monica Lewinsky). This was a judgement call and therefore the consensus must rule the result. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 17:37, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A single event could be, but it takes time to demonstrate the enduring notability. Not 2 weeks. Niteshift36 (talk) 17:46, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

True, but I don't know if it is reasonable or required by policy to ask that we wait a few years before starting an article even for a BLP. Editors will most be interested in working on an article while the story is breaking. A better way of dealing with this issue - I think - is to let the article be, and when it turns out that there is no long-term notability, then nominate it for deletion.--brew crewer (yada, yada) 17:55, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Unlike Lewinsky, who actually had the affair, Kelly is more of a flirt who angered the actual mistress. Niteshift36 (talk) 18:00, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's a reasonable position to take and probably mine as well. However your or my judgement call does not mandate deletion. This is something that is resolved by a consensus of judgement calls and the consensus was absolutely clear in favor of keeping the article. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 18:03, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse deletion Effectively this is WP:ONEEVENT - it's the people who she slept with who happen to be notable, and not her. No, that's not being sexist - those individuals were notable before sleeping with her. AFD is WP:NOTAVOTE - it's policy that matters, and you cannot twist policies so badly (especially BLP policies) to even consider this person as meeting them. As such, the deletion was as per policy (✉→BWilkins←✎) 17:50, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me but it is far from established that the subject here has had an affair, never mind multiple ones. The subject has certainly not admitted that. I should think someone citing BLP would be more circumspect about tossing out claims like that so matter-of-factly.--Brian Dell (talk) 22:58, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse deletion As per Bwilkins comment, "effectively this is WP:ONEEVENT - it's the people who she slept with who happen to be notable, and not her" - she does not warrant a wikipedia biography of her not notable life, add the details about her to the notable peoples life stories. - Youreallycan 17:58, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and turkey-slap closing admin A closing administrator's job is to interpret consensus, not impose his own opinion, just as a World Series umpire couldn't have declared the Detroit Tigers the winner with an argument that "they were really the better team". Drmies didn't evaluate consensus; he cast a vote and arrogated veto power over every one of the dozens of opinions that addressed the BLP1E issue explicitly or implicitly. The "endorse" opinions here also have the sad aspect of being ex post facto AfD votes and blandly repeating "Effectively this is WP:ONEEVENT" does not address the issue with the improper close. It is closes like this that make Wikipedia a laughingstock in which the arbitrary biases of one admin override the considered opinions of every participant in the discussion. Alansohn (talk) 19:16, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yeah, it's AfD closures that make Wikipedia a laughingstock. Niteshift36 (talk) 19:31, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@User:Alansohn - WP:Consensus is not a head count , its a well considered interpretation of the deletion discussion in regards to all of EN wikpedia policy and guidelines as was this close decision - Youreallycan 19:36, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

right. And when one does so, it is especially necessary to do it right, with great attention to the real situation, not the technicalities. DGG ( talk ) 19:48, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

overturn and let anyone who wants bring a second AfD. I can excuse the AfD nomination as being done on Nov.13, but by the 20th when the close was made it was blindingly clear that she is now a figure with an historical role. The close said "this is exactly what BLP `1E is intended to cover". Rather, he should have said "This is exactly what BLP 1E is not intended to cover. Even in the close, he admits substantial worldwide coverage. The coverage is not about mere tabloid fodder--what might be tabloid if it were about insignificant individuals who happened to get a great deal of attention by chance becomes major news when it is about significant people who get a great deal of coverage because of the political significance. She was indeed not the key significant figure, but she was directly involved as one of the three key participants. She is not low profile, and, having set off a chain of major events, she's a major player. The basic principle behind all of BLP is DO NO HARM,and certainly no conceivable additional harm can be done by this, after what the press has done. WP:OSTRICH is used to mean people who nominate people of things for deletion because they haven't heard of thinge; but it should more properly be used for WP being a collective ostrich, refusing to include what all the world knows. DGG ( talk ) 19:48, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion - A correct application of WP:BLP1E. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:08, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn the deletion of the history, but endorse redirection to Petraeus_scandal#Jill_Kelley. BLP1E is not a good reason for deletion. It is clear there is support for coverage of this person, but there is not (yet) good reason for a stand-alone-article. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 20:18, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- That redirect already exists. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:48, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - The page history should be available behind the redirect. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I reviewed this again, given the large number of straight "Overturn" !votes, reading the AfD more carefully and the cache copy of the article. I read a rough concenus as being a straight "keep" within reasonable discretion, and a mandated "merge and redirect" at a stretch. The cached version is a weak BLP article. Having said that, I don't think there are further BLP problems requiring action. The most relevant policy/guideline failed is Wikipedia:Notability_(people)#People_notable_for_only_one_event, which reads to me as clearly supporting the content being moved to an article covering the event, not the person. However, closing the discussion this way is a stretch, and may even be called a WP:Supervote, but not decidedly. If the AfD is closed as a mandated "merge and redirect" (history intact), then the door is open for a spinout article, iff the Petraeus_scandal becomes too large and Petraeus_scandal#Jill_Kelley is a major section (which today it is not). My !vote is for Overturn (Merge and redirect to Petraeus_scandal#Jill_Kelley). --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:28, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn BLP1E is not a CSD, if the closing admin had a dissenting opinion it should have been expressed as a "delete" vote, not as a unilateral decision. As I mentioned at that discussion, I don't see how someone can look at that article and see BLP1E as applying. "It is not the case that the event is significant and the individual's role within it is substantial and well-documented—as in the case of John Hinckley, Jr., who shot President Ronald Reagan in 1981." A socialite that exchanges sexual emails with the soon-to-be head of the NATO forces and former commander of the Afghan War, causes the head of the CIA and previous commander of the Afghan War to resign days before his testimony to Congress about an attack on Americans in Libya, and days before the new commander of the Afghan War was to be promoted; a woman who causes an FBI agent to become so obsessive that he is taken off of her case, becomes afraid for her own safety after a noted journalist and author sends threatening emails... how is that "one event", how are those events not significant, how is her role in those events not significant, and how is that significance not well documented? BLP1E seems like it should apply, but does not. Regardless, it was a bad close, and opinions should be comments, not deletions. Also, as I mentioned in the discussion, the creator was not notified. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 21:19, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse, just because someone has been mentioned in many news reports doesn't mean she is notable, as it's all stemming from the one event. These sorts of situations are why we have BLP1E. Redirecting the page while keeping the history is reasonable, because "Jill Kelley" will be a search term. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 22:09, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. IZAK (talk) 01:42, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. IZAK (talk) 01:51, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse Deletion: Someone who may or may not have had an affair with someone and called the cops on the media saying they were an ambassador or something is not notable and BLP1E is in full effect on this one. Good deletion Drmies. :) - Neutralhomer • Talk • 02:20, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn I have the utmost respect for Drmies as an administrator, but I wholeheartedly agree with both IZAD and Alansohn (but hitting Drmies with a turkey would be out of line)...the consensus was to keep, but instead of interpreting said consensus, Drmies imposed his interpretation of WP:BLP1E. I would at the very least request a relisting of the AfD, but feel that keeping the article as is would be the best option. Go Phightins! 04:02, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
overturn Keep voters were aware of BLP1E, considered it, and decided that the level of notability was high enough in this case that that wasn't relevant here. Admins' job is not to impose their own viewpoints on a clear consensus about a difficult to decide policy. There's a reasonable argument here for BLP1E being relevant. It was considered and rejected in the AfD. JoshuaZ (talk) 04:28, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I see people saying that honorary consul is a silly thing here in this discussion. You should be aware that thia is a real position, and has real diplomatic functions, so is not a silly thing. Though being an honorary consul does not make one notable (just as being a member of a diplomatic corps doesn't make one notable), it is not a silly thing. -- 70.24.250.26 (talk) 07:59, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn - Consensus to keep in view of the WP:BLP1E policy was clear. As for the BLP1E policy, the closer was wrong on several levels. First, as I posted in the AfD, Kelley put herself in the public spotlight eight years ago when she was featured on a U.S. national television show.St Petersburg Times January 7, 2003. Her life story has been covered in detail since at least 2003 and biography coverage of her life from the television show was followed by coverage of her life in Tribune January 15, 2003 (at http://nl.newsbank.com/sites/tt/ , Search for: "TASTY TELEVISION" AND date(01/13/2003 to 1/17/2003)), St Petersburg Times January 15, 2003, St Petersburg Times October 8, 2003. There's in-depth biography information again beginning on Philadelphia Inquirer November 11, 2012 and many other sources through Associated Press November 13, 2012. She was not a low profile individual before the Petraeus scandal and the coverage of her life due to the Petraeus scandal is well beyond the context of the Petraeus scandal, so the article restrictions of WP:BLP1E do not apply. These were all brought out in the AfD discussion by long term editors. There is no justification in the close for the failure to apply the requirements of WP:BLP1E or to impose that closer's own viewpoints on a clear consensus regarding the WP:BLP1E policy. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 12:38, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse Deletion: (note: I originally nominated the article for deletion, so I do have a bias here.) That being said, I fully agree with the points made by Drmies, Ed, Bwilkins, etc. Afd is not a vote and in cases where one side makes a very weak argument (as did many Keep voters) their numerical strength is not the concern of the closing Admin. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:31, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn with a side of trout- Numbers, and more importantly WP:BLP1E (as has been alaborated above, so I'm not going to re-hash) do not support deletion. Umbralcorax (talk) 18:18, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn The close misrepresented the facts of the discussion in an outrageous way, claiming that "only a few" keeps addressed the question of BLP1E whereas "a number of deletes" was supposedly larger. It seems apparent that this misrepresentation was contrived to arrive at a result which the closer preferred. Determination of rough consensus requires that the closer should "be as impartial as is possible" and this was not done. Warden (talk) 20:19, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Colonel, you must either doubt my good faith or my competency, or both. Or you suffer from an illness of your rhetorical gland. Drmies (talk) 03:57, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion It appears process was properly followed. MBisanz ^talk 03:41, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn to keep or no consensus, not a BLP1E case, we have indepth biography information and the individual's role within the event is substantial and well-documented. I'm fine with the merging in the "event article" but given the large consensus BLP1E could not be misinterpreted and used to justify an outcome that goes against the discussion. Cavarrone (talk) 07:25, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn to keep. BLP1E is indeed policy, and rightfully so, but per WP:WI1E and WP:WIALPI (both of which I wrote), it's a bridge too far to apply them to this case--certainly too far to close against a numerical consensus like that based on a disputed interpretation of policy. Those who showed up to the AfD gave some very compelling arguments why 1E did not apply, which should have carried the day in a dispassionate close. Jclemens (talk) 08:51, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You can't reasonably analogize her role to that of the man who assassinated Ronald Reagan, the listed exception to BLP1E. She's more of an ancillary character to this scandal; petreaus and broadwell are the central figures. The first essay you wrote says things like "When an individual is covered for a single event, and the spotlight follows that individual into his or her new endeavors they should still have an article. Here, she hasn't gone on to have a tv show or a movie contract, as the closing admin astutely noted, and in contrast to the supposedly similar other women like Monica. As far as your second article, I dont really think that the minor news coverage and one Food Fight show from kind of a while ago are anying other than trivial items per WP:BIO. I certainly don't think they make her "high profile."

This all seems a bit misguided. Who cares if there were 7 times as many keep votes in the AfD if it's not a vote? There were a large number of "omg obviously she should have an article because this scandal is kind of a big deal" votes. To the extent the keepers mentioned blp1e at all, it was to say "obviously her role is substantial." That's not obvious. I could be convinced she qualifies, but not if the only example is the Reagan assassination. Basically, I feel like yes there were a lot of keep votes but they weren't very convincing. Isn't the role of the closing admin to weigh the strength of he arguments rather than to count the votes? I don't really see how you can say the result was obviously wrong from either a substantive or process perspective. And this isn't just supposed to be another round of AfD, is it?AgnosticAphid talk 20:01, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment and I ask those who say merely endorse because of BLP1E to explain why the exceptions to it listed by JClemens, and those arguments based on very extensive coverage and on historic significance, do not apply. DGG ( talk ) 17:46, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn to keep. There are far less notable people in Widipedia, i.e. Eunice Penix, one of five commissioners in a small town, Dade City FL. Tupelo the typo fixer (talk) 18:59, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS is usually not that persuasive. Niteshift36 (talk) 23:10, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for taking care of that other stuff. I really appreciate it. Tupelo the typo fixer (talk) 21:29, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn to keep, "stylistically" because giving the thumbs up to overriding a 2 to 1 consensus (the raw "votes" in the original review were even more lopsided) to keep suggests to closing admins that consensus is not just not determinative but a peripheral consideration, and "substantively" because a keep does not preclude another deletion review a year from now. I have yet to see anyone calling for deletion explain why the sources describing the subject as "at the center" of the scandal or as a "central figure" should be dismissed. BLP1E states clearly that if "the event was significant and the individual's role within it was substantial and well-documented" a BLP1E rationale has not been made out. Are there any sources at all describing this subject as a "minor player" or peripheral to the scandal? Why are there standalone "Who is Jill Kelley?" stories about the subject if the subject is only a notable under another topic? I am not contending here that the subject is notable for all time. WP:NOTNEWS merely limits application of the principle that notability varies with time, it does not completely eliminate the principle. The primary problem with this deletion is that it was premature. Again and again I see people interfering with current events articles by expending time and energy trying to get them deleted at an early stage when it could all be handled far more smoothly if people would wait a few months when public interest will have waned to a negligible level (as it should if it's truly a BLP1E).--Brian Dell (talk) 23:20, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn. Normally I defer to the closer's discretion, but a close against the local consensus in the discussion requires a clear support from the wider consensus embodied by our polices. While the broad policy of BIO1E/BLP1E is supported by strong consensus throughout the community, at the outer edges the application of those policies is murkier. In my opinion, the case to distinguish this article as a valid exception to BIO/BLP1E was advanced well enough that closing against local consensus was not justified. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 23:31, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn -- Admins do not get to substitute their judgement for the judgement of other editors in cases of multi-factor application of policy such a this -- Xymmax is correct. Alanscottwalker (talk) 03:04, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn. If BLP1E were to be applied by unilateral administrative action, it would be a speedy deletion ground. But the application of this policy to the facts is notoriously contentious, and a matter for consensus. There are of course cases in AfDs where an admin could go either way, but this just wasn't one of them on my reading of the discussion. Send it back to AfD in a few months when she'll be Jill Who? and it'll rightfully be deleted then. --Mkativerata (talk) 09:02, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn BLP1E has to be more subtly read than some are arguing. The fact of an individual being notable for only "one event" should not lead inexorably to a conclusion that the biographical article should be deleted. Readers want to scrutinize the people responsible for the role that they played in significant events. When "one event" is the cause for an article, we should be exercising restraint in what we include in that article. If the person's and the event's importance is established in sources, I think an article, written with restraint, is probably called for. Bus stop (talk) 04:13, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
NOTIFICATION: WP:VPP has received a notification of the discussions that relate to this page and the policy of WP:BLP1E. See Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#How to apply WP:BLP1E or not [1]. Thank you, IZAK (talk) 20:18, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion Just because we can document the non-notable aspect of someone's life outside of one notable event does not make for a good encyclopedic article if the only "highlight" is being part of an event that portrays that person negatively. There was no misapplication of BLP1E here - just because the majority !voted to keep, the admid properly cited the BLP concerns outweighing the majority - this is completely allowable, particularly when BLP policy is being talked about. --MASEM (t) 20:26, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. The rationale given for deletion was spot-on and the point - particularly in the face of over-excitedness regarding a current news story - is not to count votes, but to weigh arguments (in this discussion as much as the last one). The acid-test here is whether there would be any encyclopaedic value in standalone bio enabling people to read about Kelley outside of the context of the events that have made her famous. The answer to that is obviously no - there is no-one in the world who will want to find out about this person whilst not giving two hoots about her emails. Formerip (talk) 20:39, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi Formerip: There is no way that the Petraeus scandal article could and should contain the growing and important details about the five main players so far: Jill Kelley, Paula Broadwell; David Petraeus; John R. Allen; Natalie Khawam. See for example this latest New York Times article about the five of them and their uniqueness: Second Act of a Scandal: Cue the Superlawyers and the Spinmasters (Published: November 20, 2012) with important photos of and information about all five. Let editors who are able and willing to develop these key articles do their job instead of standing in the way of WP performing its role as a reliable encyclopedia in this vital subject. Thanks, IZAK (talk) 01:34, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse. I probably would not have closed it this way, but, bearing in mind that admin discretion is at its maximum when BLPs are involved, I cannot bring myself to say that this close falls into the "unrefrigerated dead fish" category either. I think it's within admin discretion, though perhaps barely so. T. Canens (talk) 21:26, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn, this is a supervote. Consensus is clear here, and I've closed more than one AfD while holding my nose at the result. Admins are there to uphold consensus, not override it. It's not a case of just abstaining from nose-counting, either (which I actually would support), but a case where many editors explicitly disagreed that this was a BLP1E case, and explained why. This is BLP over-enthusiasm, and while the motives may be commendable, the outcome is not and must be overturned. Admins are here to support the community, not overrule it, and this is not within the reasonable realm of discretion. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 01:37, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. Stalwart111 says it best here. If this one event had not happened, Jill Kelley would not have an article. Ish dar ian 09:04, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse the original closure of delete. WP:BLP1E is applicable. Coverage in Petraeus scandal is adequate and more appropriate than a separate article on an otherwise non-notable living person. DocTree (ʞlɐʇ·cont) Join WER 14:01, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn to keep. BLP1E is matter of degree, not black and white. I this case the admin did not judge consensus of the AfD on the matter, but supervoted. Tijfo098 (talk) 10:55, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn to keep and ~~trout~~ ~~barracuda~~ whale closing admin This is a textbook and appalling case of supervote, and of utter disregard of obvious users' consensus. I am shocked a vaguely experienced user, let alone an admin, could even think of closing in such a blatantly disruptive way. If such an incident repeats, Drmies should be sanctioned. --Cyclopia ^talk 17:41, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse - as much of the keep votes were crap from SPAs or based on "its in the news!" dribble. There was no effective argument mounted against WP:BLP1E. Well within closer's discretion. Tarc (talk) 19:44, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn to keep per the resounding consensus in the AFD. While AFD is not (simply) a vote, that maxim is not an excuse for disregarding such a clear expression of community sentiment. BLP1E, as policy, does not dictate outcomes, but sets out three standards governing the exercise of community discretion. And, by its own terms, BLP1E should not apply here: "WP:BLP1E should be applied only to biographies of low-profile individuals." Low-profile individuals do not receive sustained coverage in national newspapers of record; Kelley has. The artless manner in which many keep !votes invoke this principle does not justify summarily discounting them. A useful analogy might be Alexander Butterfield, or perhaps Frank Wills. The closer's action substituted his own judgment under policy standards for the community's, and was therefore an illegitimate supervote. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 00:36, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Maintain status quo. I can see an argument for an article here, although I think the needs are better served by a redirect as now exists. However, having read the deleted article, I think it is very poor and a BLP violation and should not be undeleted. There is simply no need to dredge up all of those ancient links in order to source trivial aspects of a private citizen's private life, nor should portions of the article be sourced to blogs or Youtube videos. The information currently linked to from the redirect is about what should exist; whether it is a section in a longer article, or a separate article, does not seem to me to be a big deal. Chick Bowen 06:11, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment That's a pretty skewed view. I've looked at the deleted article, too, and while it has one link to Youtube (I see none to blogs?), it also has sources directly about her in the New York Times, USA Today, U.S. News, and the Washington Post. Mind you, these are articles directly about her with her as the main subject, containing her name in the headline, they're not trivial mentions or name drops. And these are hardly low-quality, tabloid-trash sources, they're generally regarded as perfectly acceptable. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 09:32, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.