Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Madeleine Westerhout

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. Consensus is that GNG is met. (non-admin closure) power~enwiki (π, ν) 19:05, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Madeleine Westerhout (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)

We don't have articles about secretaries. There now seems to be a tendency to write about everyone working at the White House for Trump, even in the most junior role; we don't do that for any other country. Her job is a menial one. Tataral (talk) 14:24, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 14:26, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 14:26, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. If reliable sources ccver her, she is notable. It is unfair and inaccurate to characterize her role as "menial". Besides, Rose Mary Woods. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 15:23, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Woods was a key figure in the Watergate scandal and only got a Wikipedia article after that and a career spanning decades. There is no evidence that Westerhout has any comparable historical significance (of course, if she played a comparable role in events leading to Trump's impeachment, she might become notable). We can't have articles about any secretary, janitor or gardener working at the White House just because their boss happens to be an influential politician. We don't have such articles about French or German or Polish secretaries to government figures. This article is really emblematic of the special treatment the US gets compared to other countries, which needs to stop. --Tataral (talk) 15:36, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I agree with Eastmain: if someone is covered in RS, then GNG is met. It doesn't matter why they're covered at all. Also, arguing that there aren't comparable articles for other countries, so we shouldn't have this one isn't valid. If there's not comparable coverage in other countries, then we can't write about that person. If there is comparable coverage, then go ahead and write about the secretaries. If they're women, we can put together a good redlist for Women in Red and sponsor an editathon on the topic. :) Megalibrarygirl (talk) 18:49, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete the coverage is of the human interest type. It is not the level of indepth reliable source coverage needed to show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:18, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, primarily per Eastmain. Individual has been covered by WP:RS, and proposing deletion on the grounds that their job "is a menail one" is insufficient at best. --HunterM267 ^talk 17:58, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: It is simply not true that "We don't have articles about secretaries." Twelve of the 17 other Personal Secretaries to the President listed on Wikipedia do have an article. When a secretary holds a position of national political importance, it is appropriate to have an article. Political historians write about these figues because they are significant. --Albany NY (talk) 02:44, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Repeating my comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ashley Estes Kavanaugh: I don't mean to go all WP:WAX, but it strikes me of similar importance to Evelyn Lincoln, Grace Tully, etc. The list at the heading Personal secretary to the President shows that most such secretaries have Wikipedia articles. The article should be improved, perhaps; but not deleted. TJRC (talk) 04:15, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per TJRC, reliable sources cover her, she is notable. Thazinkoko (talk) 05:21, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per John Pack Lambert - I definitely agree with above sentiments, there are a lot of notable women we still don't have articles on, but all I am seeing here are a few fluff pieces - nothing to suggest the lasting notability that's needed for inclusion in an encyclopedia. The nominator should probably withdraw the comment about secretarial work being menial. I completely agree that the deciding factor here is WP:RS, and I don't think there are enough here.Seraphim System ^(talk) 00:25, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep – Meets WP:BASIC per a review of available sources. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:38, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per WP:BASIC.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 18:13, 15 July 2018 (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.