Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hilary Rosen

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 SNOW KEEP (non-administrative close, its that obvious). Milowent • hasspoken 12:35, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hilary Rosen

[edit]
Hilary Rosen (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)

This article appears to be a self-serving resume'. Appears to violate WP:YOURSELF WP:NOT#NEWS WP:NPOV Review article's talk page for previous comments. Bwmoll3 (talk) 15:48, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep The article has oscillated between anti-RIAA hate-page and pro-Rosen puff piece, but hopefully some kind of compromise can be reached. I've cut out some of the more egregious stuff myself. The article has multiple references which establish notability, focusing on Rosen herself rather than the RIAA disputes, and she seems to have found new notability as a LGBT campaigner. --Colapeninsula (talk) 16:15, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This page is an advertisement and the individual is marginally notable only for recent comments made about Ann Romney on CNN. --CheshireCatRI —Preceding undated comment added 16:22, 12 April 2012 (UTC).[reply]
  • Delete or Revise. It reads like a introduction to a speaking engagement. Why not make it appear more like Ann Romney's or Hillary Clinton's Wikipedia pages. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.67.1.195 (talk) 16:51, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Former RIAA chief? That alone confers significant notability, never mind her political actions now. Obvious keep. Thargor Orlando (talk) 17:08, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, former pres of the RIAA — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.40.50.4 (talk) Note: I have removed a falsified signature from this comment. —KuyaBriBriTalk 17:35, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, clearly and obviously. When I saw her in the news, I thought, "Hey, is this the same Hilary Rosen who used to head up the RIAA?" Notable for her RIAA presidency, LGBT activism and political commentary. The only AfD criterion suggested by the nom is WP:NOT#NEWS, but given the multiple bases for notability, that is not applicable here.
This in no way a close question. Yes, the article is an ungodly mess and needs substantial cleanup; and that's reflected in the nomination, all of which (other than NOT#NEWS) are discussions of content, not whether the article should exist. But AfD is not a forum for cleanup; and we do not delete messy articles on notable subjects, we fix them. TJRC (talk) 18:57, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. MemoRamso (talk) 19:05, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Heading RIAA alone is sufficient to confer notability. If you believe the article is imbalanced, the solution is to edit it to fix the imbalance, not to take it to AFD. Fixing POV is not AFD's purpose. —Lowellian (reply) 19:26, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - certainly a notable public figure. The article does need some attention, but AfD is not cleanup and the provided reasons for deletion are not in the list of reasons for deletion per se. - Sangrolu (talk) 19:32, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is a significantly changed article than it was just a few hours ago. Does no longer appear to violate the guidelines I noted previously and I change my view to Keep. Bwmoll3 (talk) 19:36, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per argument by Sangrolu. No deletion rationale is given and the arguments are all cleanup issues.165.123.24.3 (talk) 19:43, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Long term head of RIAA makes her a public figure, clearing the bar for me out of the gate. Everything else is a matter of cooperative editing. Carrite (talk) 19:51, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep trust me, there is people in Wikipedia waaaayy less notable than her --Camilo Sanchez (talk) 20:13, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The article may not be good, but she is obviously notable. What's particularly perverse here is that this article has existed for almost a decade with no attempts to get it deleted, and that what has triggered the current proposal for deletion is that Rosen has been in the news in the last few days. Wikipedia is not news, but the fact that someone who's had an article for 9 years is now in the news is not a good reason to delete the article. john k (talk) 21:49, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Being a commentator/pundit on CNBC, MSNBC and CNN is sufficient to confer notability. 69.217.201.222 (talk) 21:51, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep; while there are certainly aspects for improvement, there's good basic encyclopedic stuff here. Claims that her notability is only due to recent comments is easily belied by checking GNews archives, and finding her name in the headlines of dozens of articles, all predating the kurrent kerfuffle, including such sources as the NY Times, Washington Post, and Wired. --Nat Gertler (talk) 22:06, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Obvious keep. Even if she'd done nothing else with her life, heading the RIAA is arguably prima facie grounds for notability in itself. Her subsequent activities only add to that case. This article needs some cleanup so it reads less like a promotional piece, but I don't think her notability is in doubt. Robofish (talk) 22:40, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep If for no other reason than her Congressional testimony during the Napster hearings. SaltyBoatr get wet 22:45, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Certainly a notable person as former RIAA head alone, and pretty much someone known by everyone in the music and black market music industries. Nate • (chatter) 22:54, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep' she was notable 10+ years ago, she definitely is now. 23:56, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Weak keep, but clean up and inprove NPOV. Perhaps only a marginally notable lobbyist now, but certainly notable in the past with RIAA. Jonathunder (talk) 00:02, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - no reason to lose the article because it wasn't written the way it should have been. Rewrite it, what is this Britannica? Agreed, RIAA chief is a good reason to keep. The DMCA is not a jaywalking law, it is noteworthy who was involved in its passage. JoeHenzi (talk) 01:01, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep When I saw the news in the past 48 hours I remembered her name from "somewhere". Wiki confirmed her role in the RIAA and that whole bit of history.

wiki-ny-2007 (talk) 01:38, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:37, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:37, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Closeapple (talk) 02:05, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Closeapple (talk) 02:05, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Good example of political comments which have nothing to do with solving the real problems in this country. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.179.211.205 (talk) 02:52, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: notable before, and even more so now with recent news. I had noticed her name in a news report and looked in wikipedia to find out about her.

Morris (talk) 04:00, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Snow Keep. She apparently also meets with Obama every few hours if you read rightwing blogs.--Milowent • hasspoken 04:19, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This article was around long before the Ann Romney comments, so there is no reason to delete it due to saying its only notable for recent events. Fruther, contrary to the claims by the person who posted it should be deleted, it reads no different than other biographical articles. Crd721 (talk) 06:52, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This woman could have a major impact on the 2012 campaign, Romney was dead in the water with women until her recent ill-considered comments. He may now have a chance to win support among women who find her comments slight their chosen life's work. Is it possible this woman has been posing as a Democrat in order to sabotage a presidential election in precisely this fashion? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Qhist (talk • contribs) 12:13, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oh yes, she's definitely both a republican plant and obama's best friend. And a sekrit muslin. All this aside, its time to close the AFD methinks.--Milowent • hasspoken 12:33, 13 April 2012 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Hilary_Rosen&oldid=1142204931"