Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Diane Reidy

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 Speedy delete per WP:BLP, WP:ONEEVENT, WP:COAT, and WP:SNOW. At this point, it's just a pointy and cruel reminder to a human being who is, and a condition that is, already stigmatized. Bearian (talk) 20:38, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Diane Reidy

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

This is an article about a Congressional stenographer who was forcibly removed from the House floor after shouting some things into a microphone. This is as clear a case of WP:ONEEVENT as I have seen. The incident itself had no lasting significance and the individual is only notable for this one incident. Even in the broader context of the recent government shutdown, this incident is negligible. GabrielF (talk) 17:41, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this pointy article per WP:BLP1E and let this poor woman get psychiatric help in peace. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 20:00, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is a clear violation of not news and one event. It is also a coatrack article to push one point of view about the issues related to the US government and fiscal decisions. There are few Wikipedia policies it is in compliance with. It also reads more like an essay than an article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:50, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BLP1E. Just a coatrack for someone's opinion of Congress and the shut down at the expense of someone troubled and in need of help and support. Stalwart111 21:57, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Snow delete Candleabracadabra (talk) 22:49, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:02, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:02, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Response from original author of the article

I heartily object to the deletion of this article, and would like to respond to the arguments made in their turn. The main arguments for deletion are WP:ONEEVENT (one event) and WP:BLP1E (coatrack).

In response to WP:ONEEVENT, the admittedly single event connected to this individual was sufficient to generate hundreds of news reports in all the major news outlet. Several of those are cited in the article. There is little doubt that future historical accounts of the gov't shutdown will include reference to this one event. The event was of sufficient significance to be reported, and continue to be reported world wide.

In response to WP:BLP1E, if the editors find that there are leading statements or biased language in the article, then this is grounds for edits, not deletion. I encourage the editors to make such changes or suggest changes on the talk page. Almost every sentence of the article is supported by citation, which you are encouraged to reference.

Without a response from the deleters, I consider this to be a clear cut case of censorship motivated by some kind of bias. Example "let this poor woman get psychiatric help in peace" User:Cullen328. Are you suggesting that people who may need psychiatric help should never have wikipedia articles about them?! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ted.strauss (talk • contribs) 13:29, 24 October 2013‎ (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.