Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Huma Abedin

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 but looks like a pretty strong consensus to keep. --Polaron | Talk 21:56, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Huma Abedin

Fails WP:NOTE. Ms. Abedin is one of many staffers that Hillary Clinton has. — Steven Andrew Miller (talk) 07:18, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - seems to be quite a bit of specific media coverage in both web and print sources. --Sesameball^Talk 07:30, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Huma Abedin seems to be independently notable. Also exists notable 3rd party references from google[1][2][3][4]. MatthewYeager 07:45, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep - Steven Andrew Miller is fast gaining a reputation for contentious edits on political articles. Apparently, he wishes to add "partisan deletionist" to his CV. --Eleemosynary 09:11, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - She's not just 'one of many staffers', she is Hillary Clinton's 'top aide' (from the Vogue article) Chewyrunt 13:46, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - a senior adviser of the leading Democratic Presidential Candidate is notable. However, we need to delete the lesbian lover gossip unless it is substantiated.Kevinp2 17:04, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete - the article exists as a political hit piece. Hillary Clinton's lesbian lover? You should be ashamed of yourselves. --AStanhope 17:19, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

the article existed for several months before that information was added, suggesting that it was not created for that reason Chewyrunt 18:33, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Democratic partisans find "lesbian lover" to be derogatory when it suits them. Is it or isn't it? Dave Fafarman 16:57, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Political hit piece or not, the article isn't libel and there is no reason other than political ones to remove it. --MacGyver07 18:47, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep - Notable as claimed; Ms. Abedin is too prominent in the photos to be just 'one of many staffers'. Dave Fafarman 16:48, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable as claimed, though another good media source would help. I removed a pseudo source, from Free Republic and the BLP libel it "documented." DGG (talk) 05:04, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep She's the top aide to the most likely future President of the United States, for crying out loud; that makes her notable. And while the lesbian lover stuff should be kept to a minimum until the story breaks in the dominant national media, its beginning to appear that its only a matter of time before that happens. It would be inefficient to delete the article now, and then have to revive it when The Los Angeles Times breaks the story on the apparent lesbian love affair between Ms. Abedin and Sen. Clinton. KevinOKeeffe 08:35, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Very strong keep... how does deleting the entry of a person who is without a doubt, a major party in Hillary's campaign, even if the rumors are rumors, why delete known facts to protect her. If you decide that this is a reason to delete, then how is the neutrality of wiki upheld? If deleted, couldn't it be said that you are ignoring persons entries simply because there is one piece that may not be flattering? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chilei (talk • contribs) 00:57, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and watchlist - there's no reason to keep the rumour-mongering on the page. However, the two major magazine stories suggest notability. Relata refero 14:41, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and watchlist - I came to wikipedia to find this entry —Preceding unsigned comment added by Xaxxon (talk • contribs) 00:55, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Whether or not anybody agrees with this, she's becoming the center of attention, an attention that could possibly end a political career or she could be a key person to the history of a President.
Very strong keep - regardless of the truth behind current allegations, it seems plain that this person is an influential advisor to an influential woman. No reason to remove it, and I think the present article dances around the lesbian rumors without good reason. stephan.com 05:47, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

yeah why is this up for deletion? there's no rational argument or reason to get rid of it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.200.111.66 (talk) 03:01, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do not delete this page! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.231.21.150 (talk) 04:51, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Rumor does not belong on Wikipedia, and non-rumor material is insubstantial. See WP:Living. --Voidvector 06:19, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep She is an important player in a major US Presidential campaign. Whether or not she is the subject of a rumor is inconsequential. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ecogeek (talk • contribs) 14:25, 6 November 2007 (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.