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. (non-admin closure) Kharkiv07 (T) 22:37, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Huma Abedin[edit]

Huma Abedin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( • AfD statistics)

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

As it currently sits, this BLP is largely a positive spin on negative news re:Subject. This BLP's content,discussion and edit wars relate to only 4 things:1: Subject's tangential relation to her boss, Hillary Clinton 2: Subject's tangential relation to her husband Anthony Weiner 3: A letter written by 5 Republican Congressmen related to Subject's alleged familial ties to the Muslim Brotherhood which most editors here wish to dismiss and diminish as a smear and "conspiracy theory". 4: Abedin's emails made public as a result of Judicial Watch's FOIA request regarding Subject's emails on Clinton's computer which most editors here feel are non-notable. Rather than have a BLP which is skewed away from "anything negative" about the Subject, I think Wikipedia and our Readers are better served by not having a BLP on this Subject at all. On the other hand, other, perhaps most, Editors here, are not and have not been adding any content at all, just reverting content added by a few of us, thus the BLP is too brief and shallow to qualify for inclusion.Nocturnalnow (talk) 18:49, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy keep, SNOW Close, and possibly sanction this user. The subject of the article is notable by a mile, and the nominator knows it. AfD is not the place to address perceived article bias, or the conservative editors' complaints that additions of tangential material that may be negative towards Hillary Clinton is being reverted by those of us who are trying to keep this from becoming the "Conservapedia" version of what this article should be. User is WP:POINTY, disrupting Wikipedia to push their conservative POV. Discussion on the article's talk page hasn't gotten us far, hence this. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:58, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete A review of the BLP will show nothing individually notable is within it. Just some references to her relationships with her boss and husband as well as references to what most editors feel to be conspiracy theories from politically biased sources. Nocturnalnow (talk) 19:07, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • CommentStruck Delete !=vote by the nominator, since the nomination amounts to a vote already. Edison (talk) 20:55, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am not a conservative editor...see my Oct. 21st edits re: Lynton Crosby and have never claimed anything about Hillary Clinton re: this BLP. The edit above, however, is a great example of the attack posture and "conservative cabal" paranoia. Nocturnalnow (talk) 19:13, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The subject of this article has sufficient non-routine coverage in reliable sources, establishing notability. Your deletion "rationale" is about things that aren't in this article that you think should be (which are all being pumped up by conservative media, as it so happens). Your problems with this article have nothing to do with subject notability and AfD is a highly inappropriate step for you to have taken. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:44, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely wrong, in my view. The wording is not "sufficient" it is "significant" and that is not the case with Abedin. Also, your lack of AGF is extreme and your continuing reference to conservatives has nothing to do with my editing and in fact I take offense to that allegation which you have made repeatedly about pushing a conservative POV, you are extremely disruptive and maybe just too accusatory to be editing or even discussing edits.Nocturnalnow (talk) 05:32, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per WP:POINT. Gamaliel (talk) 19:26, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please assume good faith. I have no point to make, I am trying to help deal with a currently silly BLP about a non-notable person. Nocturnalnow (talk) 05:36, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep This is a textbook example of a notable figure. I can't see how this person doesn't meet WP:GNG. As for the argument that the BLP is "too brief", this article is much more in depth then a lot of other BLP on Wikipedia. Wildthing61476 (talk) 19:38, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete It's not unbiased, and should be removed unless it can be unbiased since many people will be referencing it. As said above: a review of the BLP will show nothing individually notable is within it. It's largely a positive spin about many negative issues written by supporters of her and the campaign. hyperduc (talk) 20:23, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Even if your allegations were well founded, your main point would be no reason to delete the article: see WP:SUSCEPTIBLE. -- Hoary (talk) 01:11, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hoary, you reference an essay, which is not policy. Please see the top of the page you link to, i.e. "Essays are not Wikipedia policies or guidelines. Some essays represent widespread norms; others only represent minority viewpoints."Nocturnalnow (talk) 05:38, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Good. It is indeed an essay, and an essay may only represent a minority viewpoint; thus it is imaginable that this part of this essay represents a minority viewpoint. However, I doubt that it does. Well, the list of policy reasons for deletion is here. It's a list, prefaced with: "Reasons for deletion include, but are not limited to, the following". So you may wish to add to the list "Articles whose content cannot be freed from bias". But then you'll have to argue convincingly that this is a reason for deletion and that the article cannot be freed from bias. I think you'll find this very difficult. -- Hoary (talk) 08:27, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, The reasons for deletion include #8:Notability, which I think applies and also 9. "Articles that breach Wikipedia's policy on biographies of living persons" which I think also applies as our BLP policy provides that #Editors must take particular care when adding information about living persons to any Wikipedia page.[1] Such material requires a high degree of sensitivity, and must adhere strictly to all applicable laws in the United States, to this policy, and to Wikipedia's three core content policies: 1: Neutral point of view" . I feel the BLP does not adhere to the NPOV requirement, thus is in breach Of Wikipedia's policy on BLP, thus, as shown above, fits with #9 reason for deletion. Nocturnalnow (talk) 20:51, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Obviously notable, in the Wikipedia sense of the word; possibly also notable in the real-world sense of the word. And an article here can be helpful: A look in Google Books shows an obsession with Abedin among fringe writers; a WP article can provide a sane version. -- Hoary (talk) 01:14, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment At Notability for People there is a set of qualifications, none of which Abedin meets; i.e."For people, the person who is the topic of a biographical article should be "worthy of notice" or "note" – that is, "remarkable" or "significant, interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded" within Wikipedia as a written account of that person's life. "Notable" in the sense of being "famous" or "popular" – although not irrelevant – is secondary."

In addition, under "basic criteria", we have: "trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may not be sufficient to establish notability." which also fits with the coverage of this glorified secretary and wife of a scandalized husband. I have been asking on the talk page for one example of anything notable Abedin has ever done, and no one has come up with even one example. Nocturnalnow (talk) 05:10, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Well-sourced and clearly meets WP:GNG. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 07:29, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Obvious keep per WP:GNG and a glance at the refs. Articles are not deleted because negative coatracking is removed, however, editors can be sanctioned for pointy behavior regarding a BLP. Johnuniq (talk) 09:11, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: The questions of notability and biased editing aside for the moment --- perhaps a principal reason for not deleting this entry would be consideration of the interests of non-editor Wikipedia readers and users.
  Certainly, as the 2016 election campaign proceeds, the negative attack ad efforts of the opposing sides will crank up, especially as we move into the general election cycle. As pertains to the subject of this bio., and given the possibility that her boss may likely be the nominee --- all of the various allegations regarding Abedin will predictably resurface in (at least the conservative) media:

• her dual employment status while at the State Dept.;
• her State Dept. maternity leave situation;
• her alleged excessive travel cost reimbursements;
• her use of the Clinton's non-government, private email server;
• the whole matter of her husband's sexting scandals;
• allegations suggesting a lesbian-lover relationship with Clinton;
• her childhood and youth growing up in Saudi Arabia;
• allegations of her family's ties with the Muslim Brotherhood;

etc., etc.

Any renewed media coverage of such topics will undoubtedly result in Wikipedia readers searching on her name. Consequently, it would seem advisable that consideration be given, during this discussion on proposed deletion, to factoring in the question of how and where ' Huma Abedin ' searches would then be redirected, if this article were in fact to be deleted. --- Professor JR (talk) 09:18, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is inappropriate for this list of unsourced allegations to appear in an AfD discussion. Surely it's a violation of WP:BLP? -- Scjessey (talk) 15:22, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We've been discussing much of this on the article talk page. That's where this belongs, not an AfD discussion. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:52, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per the first response. Abedin is internationally notable in a heartbeat, and it isn't out of ignorance of the sources that this got nominated. This is a WP:POINT violation fair and square. The Drover's Wife (talk) 09:58, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: I note that virtually all of Clinton's other staff members, none of whom are particularly notable other than by virtue their association with the Clintons, also have articles (John Podesta; Robby Mook; Joel Benenson; Jim Margolis; Jennifer Palmieri; Stephanie Hannon; Amanda Renteria; Marc Elias; Nick Merrill; etc.) so that fact may have a bearing on this discussion. If this article were to be deleted, then similar consideration should be given to those articles, vis-à-vis AfD. --- Professor JR (talk) 11:46, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• • Each and every article should be considered on its own merits (or lack thereof). That consideration is an WP:OTHERSTUFF argument. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:55, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• • • Read again, User:Muboshgu, and you will note that I am not, in fact, making an 'argument' for their deletion, and of course every article should be considered on its own merits --- I was merely noting the point I made as possibly of interest to editors vis-à-vis this discussion, for whatever it's worth. Really, none of the subjects of the other articles are as notable as Abedin, by Wiki standards, with the possible exception of Podesta(?) and Palmieri(?) As for myself, I would support that we Keep the Adedin article. --- Professor JR (talk) 20:09, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • I apologize for misinterpreting your comment Professor JR. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:27, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I have looked through the sources that are currently in the article. There are multiple sources that provide significant coverage of her that meets the intent of the general notability guideline. I do not see any reason to delete this article, it might need work to clean it up but deletion is not the solution. -- GB fan 12:34, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Independently well known individual with significant mainstream media coverage. Satisfies WP:GNG with ease. Not even sure why this keeps being nominated. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:22, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • You mean aside from her status as Hillary's right-hand making her a lightning rod? – Muboshgu (talk) 15:55, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Both the nomination and the other delete !vote are basing their rationale on the article being "largely a positive spin" - but, if that were the case, that would be an editing issue, not a deletion issue. As such, no reasons for deletion have been provided by anyone. I also cannot help by observe that it's odd that the nomination includes, in the same paragraph, both a claim that the subject of the article is not notable and a complaint that other editors keep removing content that they are adding to the article. Why would one keep trying to add content to an article about someone they personally don't think is notable? Egsan Bacon (talk) 19:55, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Very fair comment, but hard to explain.Initially I thought she was notable because of all the press coverage of Michelle Bachmann et.al's rather worrisome accusations that somehow Abedin had gotten into a sensitive government position without being properly vetted. And then the recently made public (by court order) Abedin email wherein she says that Clinton is "often confused" I also think is notable for several reasons. However, since the first issue is being presented in the BLP as a "conspiracy theory"..which is weirdly strawmanish, imo...and the second issue has not been allowed into the BLP at all, we are left with content which I feel makes the BLP non-notable and in breach of our BLP NPOV policy. These 2 results, non-notability and Breach of BLP-NPOV policy are each reasons for deletion; i.e. reasons number 8 and 9. Nocturnalnow (talk) 21:43, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but that just seems ridiculous to me. While it is true that Abedin is mostly notable through her associations with others, there are many articles in the mainstream media covering the woman herself, her background and her career. If we can have articles on barely notable chiefs of staff like Barry Steven Jackson, we can certainly have one on the internationally known Huma Abedin. -- Scjessey (talk) 22:07, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OK that addresses the notability reason for deletion but what about reason number 9, i.e. Breach of BLP-NPOV policy? Nocturnalnow (talk) 05:32, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

How about it, indeed? Here is the policy. How is it being breached, or in clear risk of being breached, so egregiously and with such determination that rational discussion, and any of a number of administrative possibilities (up to full protection), are not or will not be adequate, so that the article is better deleted? (And would you like salt with that?) -- Hoary (talk) 09:09, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

salt looks interesting. I did not know about that. Nocturnalnow (talk) 05:19, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the most recent Reliable Sourced content which is not being allowed into the BLP. Professor J.R. and I both tried to add it in a small way yet it was immediately removed. This is just one of many examples of the BLP not being allowed to be NPOV. This is the way it seems to me. Actually, I read the entire BLP last night and it has improved dramatically since I started to edit it :) just kiding...but really, should not this new email content about Clinton being "often confused" in the view of Abedin bein the BLP since its being so widely reported by RSs? Maybe I'm Wrong about this? It looks like I will just have to accept the current editing condition of thus BLP. Nocturnalnow (talk) 17:25, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If we report everything based on being in sources, this would be Kardashianopedia. Policies exist to keep stuff like this from becoming a POV-farm, and AfD is not the place to be hashing this out. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:31, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) This is not the place to discuss a content dispute. The article talk page is the appropriate place. That said, most of the sources talking about the "confused" email are from the right wing media echo chamber. The story bounced around there for about 24 hours then vanished. Per WP:WEIGHT, it does not belong in the Huma Abedin article as it is not a significant event in that person's biography. Or in Hillary Clinton's, for that matter. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:34, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD began and has continued as a content dispute, which is why I asked for it to be SNOW closed in the first comment. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:51, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. I couldn't agree more. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:53, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Hill, The Daily Mail, etc. are not right wing echos. Your arguments about content dispute is specious because our policy includes a breach of NPOV in a BLP as 1 of the justifications for deletion, and NPOV is all about content or the lack thereof. Btw, if you are not interested in this discussion or it is a non valid nomination, why do you try so hard to influence it? Nocturnalnow (talk) 21:42, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Hill is generally neutral, but The Daily Mail is a pretty awful right-wing rag. But like I said, this is not the place for a content dispute. -- Scjessey (talk) 23:41, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And consensus is against you on adding these things, so there is no "breach" of NPOV on this article. Moving on. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:32, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Flawed equation , Just because consensus is against myself, Professor J.R. and D.Creish in some instances does not mean the BLP is NPOV. Consensus and NPOV are not synonymous. The beauty of Wikipedia is anyone can read the BLP and judge for themselves whether there is too much weight and puffery re: Subject's parents in the Early Years section, and too much weight to the media pile-on Bachmann in the Responses to allegations section. Nocturnalnow (talk) 05:03, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And those two issues are sufficient reason to nominate an article for deletion? – Muboshgu (talk) 16:40, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely. And it makes perfect sense that Wikipedia should only contain good articles, especially BLPs. Here is how we get from the 2 issues to nomination for deletion: Step 1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_policy#Reasons_for_deletion says "Articles that breach Wikipedia's policy on biographies of living persons" Step 2:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons says "material requires a high degree of sensitivity, and must adhere strictly to ... to Wikipedia's three core content policies: #1 Neutral point of view (NPOV)" Nocturnalnow (talk) 22:58, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There's no "breach" here. There's a content dispute that should've been handled on the talk page. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:15, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - For all the reasons above.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 00:25, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Such as? All I see are reasons to use the article's talk page. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:15, 28 November 2015 (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.