Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Helen Jones-Kelley

Add links
Source: 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 keep. Additional information has been provided showing she was known before 2008 and the Joe the Plumber incident. Since most comments about merging were before additional sources and info was provided, I'll leave a possible merge to be discussed on the talk page. In any case, I'd like to point some people in this discussion to Wikipedia:Merge and delete. - Mgm|(talk) 12:06, 10 December 2008 (UTC) Mgm|(talk) 12:06, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Helen Jones-Kelley

Helen Jones-Kelley (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

This person is only notable for one event. Perhaps Joe the Plumber will have lasting notability but the person who leaked accessed his records without permission probably will not. Clearly the intent of the article is hostile to Ms Jones-Kelley, as are many about people involved in the 2008 US presidential campaign. The WP policy on attack articles may or may not apply. Steve Dufour (talk) 14:50, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak Keep/Merge - on the face of it, this article might seem to pass WP:RS (given the amount of sources provided), but I agree with the nominator that there are WP:COATRACK and WP:BLP1E issues here - Helen Jones-Kelley isn't really notable in her own right. However, I think there are better alternatives to deletion: one would be to rewrite the article to focus on the event rather than the person (e.g. 2008 Ohio illegal search controversy), another would be to merge it into a subsection of the Joe the Plumber article. Terraxos (talk) 15:21, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FYI: This was announced on the Joe the Plumber talk page.---Balloonman PoppaBalloon 16:41, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete/merge NN and NOTNEWS.---Balloonman PoppaBalloon 16:44, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and Merge - well-sourced but basically a footnote to the Joe the Plumber page. A page on the "ohio illegal search controversy" as mentioned above might work but better would be a subsection of the Joe the plumber page. csloat (talk) 16:44, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Reading the article, it's clear she is notable for two things: leaking Joe the Plumber's records, and a scandal involving fundraising for Obama on state time. Plenty of sources for both (although one needs to be fixed - I'll see about doing that). A merge wouldn't work because the information on the fundraising scandal, while supported by reliable sources, would be off-topic in the Joe the Plumber article. Kafziel Complaint Department 16:48, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. She is a public figure in Ohio, now a nationally known public figure. The article is well referenced, and I agree with Kafziel, she is notable for more then just the Joe the Plumber records search. The article may need a bit of rework to avoid being perceived as a hostile work, but I had similar issues with the Diane Wilkerson article; that being most of the references available refer only to negative events not positive. Hardnfast (talk) 17:08, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Just a follow-up, it seems her actions in the Joe the Plumber searches may cause the Ohio legislature to enact a new law mandating the "firing of any unclassified state employee who improperly accesses confidential personal information". In addition to what I previously stated, having state law changed as a result of your actions would seem to be further cause for the article to stay. However, I would support the delete of the section titled "Ohio newspaper editorial comments on Jones-Kelley" as it does seem gratuitous and out of place in the article. Hardnfast (talk) 03:00, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Your facts are not correct. Her department's budget is in the billions, not the millions. Her budget is 17 Billion dollars. This demonstrates the importance of her present job position. Please see the Department biography of Helen Jones-Kelley. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 18:19, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I get the impression that her agency issues unemployment and family aid checks, not that she is free to spend the $17 billion any way she wants. Steve Dufour (talk) 20:50, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment are people not reading the article, where it talks about two completely separate events? I had to actually read it, because I had never heard of her before, but are most other people just assuming that the nomination is correct in applying BLP1E? Because it's not. Kafziel Complaint Department 17:33, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Director of major state agency and therefore notable. The Joe the P. business is worth inclusion, but incidental. BLP wouldnt apply anyway, because it was a major event of national political significance. DGG (talk) 17:50, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep Helen Jones-Kelley heads a major state agency and recieved media attention prior to her background checks on Joe Wurzelbacher. Also, aside from the Joe Wurzelbacher scandal, Jones-Kelley has also participated in another scandal. Numerous reliable sources have commented on Jones-Kelley's misuse of state computers to campaign for the 2008 election - this is documented in Ohio Inspector General Thomas Charles' report on Jones-Kelley's conduct. The issues listed above are about events and not one specific event. As there are numerous media articles concerning her various notable activities, Helen Jones-Kelley has earned a vote of strong keep. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 18:14, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. —Ism schism (talk) 18:05, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. —Ism schism (talk) 18:05, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep She is notable by virtue of office, by virtue of c.v. and by virtue of being the subject of a report from the Inspector General of Ohio (three separate and distinct claims for being notable - each of which is sufficient by WP standards) . Some of her actions were totally unrelated to Joe the Plumber, hence impossible to "merge" with any rationale at all. It is not "coatrack" as the article is quite clearly limited directly to her specific actions. It is not "WP:BLP1E" as with three separate claims to notability, that argument fails. No reason to delete. No article where it would merge with any logic at all. Person is notable otherwise. Pretty clear, even is some people wish she did not exist. Collect (talk) 18:41, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. If Joe Wurzelbacher can be notable for simply asking a question, then Helen Jones-Kelley can be notable for performing searches that breach protocol on notable figures (in this case Wurzelbacher) and for allegedly using her computer for political fund raising. Since she's famous for two events, a merge wouldn't be appropriate. --Amwestover (talk|contrib) 19:45, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment by nominator The other "controversy" is only alleged, says the article. It also seems fairly minor, using her work e-mail to forward some addresses of potential donors to Obama's campaign. I also nominated Barbara West (TV news anchor) for deletion because her article was mainly only about one event. It that case I argued for making a new article on just the event. In this case the information on the event could be given in Joe the Plumber. In both cases I don't think WP should have articles whose main purpose is to tell the world about some bad thing some marginally notable person did. Steve Dufour (talk) 20:23, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. Then I don't think WP should have articles whose purpose is to tell the world about one or two bad things a person has done. Steve Dufour (talk) 22:12, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The purpose is to provide a biography about a notable person. If most of the content is negative, that's because most of the coverage has been negative. If positive content (like her work with CASA) can be supported by reliable sources, it can certainly be added. This article has its problems, but it's far from an attack page. Kafziel Complaint Department 23:55, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The great majority of people who will read the article (if it's not deleted that is) will judge it by what it says, not by the high ideals of the Wikipedia community. Steve Dufour (talk) 07:16, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As they should. We're here to compile previously published information, not to avoid conflict or write sanitized hagiographies. If there's good stuff, we can put it in. But if the majority of what's out there is negative, then it's not undue weight to include it. The article on Sirhan Sirhan is hardly a glowing biography; we just work with what we're given. Kafziel Complaint Department 09:10, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The article on Sirhan Sirhan gives some worthwhile information on him. It's not just telling us that he is a bad person. Steve Dufour (talk) 14:43, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Also please note that you have compared murder with someone misusing IT at work. Steve Dufour (talk) 15:44, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not comparing the people, I'm comparing the article content; it's not our job to take sides. But his article doesn't have any information that this doesn't. A paragraph of background info, then on to what he did, how, and why. I chose that article as an example for that very reason. It's a guy who isn't notable for much, with an article that talks mostly about the bad things he did. And since that's what he's known for, it's okay. Kafziel Complaint Department 16:28, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sirhan Sirhan is an article I am proud of as a Wikipedian. I think most people reading it would see that an effort had been made to make it fair and informative. On the other hand, Helen Jones-Kelley would give the average person the impression that it was written to advance a political agenda or to punish its subject. (IMO of course) Steve Dufour (talk) 16:36, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or Merge - she's basically not know for much except for the Joe the Plumber issue. Sure there are some folks mad at her for looking at Joe's record (and the information was not shared). The censure for use of her e-mails for politicking was derivative of the the scrutiny around JtP and not a completely separate issue. In fact, there are those who would still love to connect her political activity with a conspiracy theory that she looked into Joe's record because of her support for Obama.Mattnad (talk) 22:26, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I question your reasoning as she is the director of an agency that has a 17 Billion dollar budget. Also important, she has had media attention prior to the Joe Wurzelbacher database searches. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 22:32, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's not particularly notable - for instance most senior vice presidents in fortune 100 corporations have multi-billion dollar P&L responsibilities. We might mention them as part of an article on their companies, but we wouldn't create articles for them alone. Again, the root of interest in her is Joe the Plumber, not her budget.Mattnad (talk) 06:12, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
True enough, but much more relevant in the context of Joe the Plumber. Not itself an argument for a separate article. Mattnad (talk) 06:12, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Subject has been the subject of significant coverage in reliable sources and is therefore notable. Oren0 (talk) 04:01, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and Merge to Joe the Plumber page. Snappy (talk) 12:20, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Further comment about e-mails - let's get real about what warrants an article. This is a minor infraction that was brought up because of politics and will be forgotten because of politics. It's so meaningless from an encyclopedic POV. I think the only reason some editors want it in here is because it satisfies other agendas. Keep in mind, just because something is in the news doesn't make it encyclopedic. We also don't publish a local police blotter - e.g. On 10/25 Mary Williams cat was rescued from a tree by officer Bob. Mattnad (talk) 15:28, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for saying that. What if we had an article on every person who used their employer's computer or e-mail account to help Obama or McCain? Steve Dufour (talk) 15:44, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If their actions were covered by multiple reliable sources, how would that be a problem? Wikipedia is not paper. And we've already established that she is notable for more than just that (in fact, the email thing is the second thing). Kafziel Complaint Department 16:28, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Try the Ohio ACLU which has now come out and called for much stronger measures against the ethics violators. Seems that they do not consider use of government computers for political purposes to be minor ... Collect (talk) 17:49, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with the Ohio ACLU. IMO Ms Jones-Kelley misused her authority and probably should be fired. I just don't think she needs to be further punished by being the subject of a Wikipedia article. Steve Dufour (talk) 19:04, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per comments by Collect, Kafziel, Ism schism, Hardnfast, and others. If she was notable only for the Joe Wurzelbacher records look up, I would agree with merging into Joe the Plumber and redirecting. However, the issue of political emails, the investigations, size of her agency, the Ohio bill 646, and the press coverage more than satisfy BLP1E. The email issue is completely separate and would not apply to the Joe the Plumber article, therefore merging there doesn't work. There is obviously more than sufficient reliable sourcing. — Becksguy (talk) 16:43, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. Let's review the facts presented in the article: 1. The Ohio Department of Job and Family Services has a director named Helen Jones-Kelley, it doesn't have its own article however. 2. Ms Jones-Kelley used her office e-mail improperly to do political activities. 3. Joe the Plumber's records were illegally accessed by Ms Jones-Kelley. This is mentioned in his article. I don't think that adds up to an encyclopedia article. Steve Dufour (talk) 19:04, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sure it's going to be one of WP's more thrilling articles. :-) Steve Dufour (talk) 07:04, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This woman is the head of a major state agency and has been implicated in two scandals, all of which are reported by reliable sources. The article clearly meets WP:BIO. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 20:48, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hillary Clinton's cleavage has also been widely reported on by reliable sources. Should we have an article on it?Steve Dufour (talk) 07:23, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Are you really going to hassle every person who thinks this should be kept? We all know how you feel. You've said it again and again and again. But the fact of the matter is, it meets WP:V and WP:BIO, and your original assertion that it fails BLP1E is clearly incorrect. So until this becomes a guideline, you don't have a leg to stand on. Kafziel Complaint Department 07:32, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
When you were thinking of counterexamples, was Hillary's cleavage the first thing that popped into your head? All kidding aside, the subject has independent notability. Hillary Clinton's chest does not. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 08:45, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No. It took me a couple days to think of it. :-) I'm going to make one more comment and then that's it for me. Steve Dufour (talk) 19:04, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Final comment by nominator: This article is not really about Helen Jones-Kelley. It is about the fact that Joe the Plumber's records were illegally accessed. This is already covered in his article. Please delete this one. Thanks. Steve Dufour (talk) 19:04, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, we know what you think. You told us. Here and here and here and here and here and here. Saying it ten more times isn't going to make you any more right. Kafziel Complaint Department 19:24, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nope. The article is heavily about her, her c.v., her appointment, her comments about her department, her improper access of JtPs records, her asking an employee to lie about such access, and her improper use of government computers for political purposes entirely unrelated to JtP. And the report of the IG, which dealt only partially with JtP. And note that the editors in JtP basically deleted the material not directly related to JtP - in short the only article dealing with the full IG report, use of government email and asking an employee to lie is this article. And, of course, her biographical information, and the Ohio department she heads. Collect (talk) 19:29, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Collect. The records lookup coverage may have catapulted this subject to greater public attention, but much of the article is unrelated to JtP. It's notable on it's own with multiple reliable sources, thus passing WP:V and WP:N easily.
Further, although Steve Dufour has responded to most of the keep !votes, he has spoken to the arguments and not to the editors, as he has a right to do. He has also been quite civil in his comments so I don't see his behavior as hassling others. However, often less is more :-)
— Becksguy (talk) 21:02, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply Your comment concerning NOTNEWS makes little sense concerning the detailed discussion above. As Collect has stated, "The article is heavily about her, her c.v., her appointment, her comments about her department, her improper access of JtPs records, her asking an employee to lie about such access, and her improper use of government computers for political purposes entirely unrelated to JtP. And the report of the IG, which dealt only partially with JtP." These arguements, along with the mass of substantial media coverage Helen Jones-Kelley has recieved for multiple events, are strong and clear reasons for keeping this article - as opposed to a simple NOTNEWS arguement with no explanation. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 20:20, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Exactly. — Becksguy (talk) 00:13, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Article is only nominally about her, the vast bulk of it is about one incident, with only a few minor resume bits thrown in for cover. BLP1E violation. Gamaliel (talk) 17:44, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Vast bulk"? An exaggeration, due primarily to the fact that two separate sets of actions do appear to make up a lot of the article. Calling it "one incident" is actually incorrect. Collect (talk) 21:34, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Collect is correct. There is no "vast bulk" about just one incident. Rather the records lookup and political emails are two major and very unconnected separate incidents, together with the previously mentioned events, information, and coverage that comprise the article. BLP1E clearly does not apply. — Becksguy (talk) 22:12, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Then there should be articles about those incidents. This article is not a biography, it is an article about two separate but related incidents. Gamaliel (talk) 22:27, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Your comment concerning BLP1E makes little sense concerning the detailed discussion above. As Collect has stated, "The article is heavily about her, her c.v., her appointment, her comments about her department, her improper access of JtPs records, her asking an employee to lie about such access, and her improper use of government computers for political purposes entirely unrelated to JtP. And the report of the IG, which dealt only partially with JtP." These arguements, along with the mass of substantial media coverage Helen Jones-Kelley has recieved for multiple events, are strong and clear reasons for keeping this article - as opposed to a simple BLP1E arguement with no explanation - and an acknowledgement of the fact that this article has reliable sources covering more than one significant event. This is documented. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 00:11, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment There is substantial news coverage of Helen Jones-Kelley before 2008 - please see; 2006 Dayton Daily News reported Montgomery County official picked to run state department. Also, 2007 Columbus Dispatch reported One child left lasting mark on new chief and Dayton Daily News reported Success would be the end of my job, director says. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 21:45, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I added a lot of material about J-K to the article just now. None of which can be construed as negative, to be sure. Collect (talk) 22:00, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • In addition, I have added material from reliable sources for the year 2007. In each article, Helen Jones-Kelley is the subject. None of this material is negative as it focuses on her role as director of the Ohio Department of Job and Family Services. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 22:08, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • When this article becomes about her and not about these incidents with a few bits of other material thrown in, I will change my vote. Gamaliel (talk) 22:27, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • When you say, "these incidents," which ones are you refering to? I was under the assumption you thought this was about only one event. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 22:33, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • I think they are essentially the same thing, though one could view them as two separate but related events. Regardless, my voteopinion stands until the article is more than a recounting of one or two events with minor biographical data thrown in. Gamaliel (talk) 22:38, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it's a good thing this isn't a vote, then. Kafziel Complaint Department 22:42, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My goodness everyone is being quite pedantic today. Or is it always like this on AfD these days? Gamaliel (talk) 22:46, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it gets a little old seeing editors - and particularly fellow admins - ignore the rest of the discussion, barely bother to look at the article, and just toss off the same argument that has been pretty well discounted since day one. I've never edited the article before this AFD, and I had never heard of this woman, but it's obvious she's had enough news coverage - about more than one thing - to warrant an article. And since the BLP1E is completely irrelevant (you yourself admit they are "two separate but related incidents"), I'm glad this isn't a vote. That's all I'm saying. Kafziel Complaint Department 23:56, 9 December 2008 (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/Helen_Jones-Kelley&oldid=1137905611"