Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Deborah Mayer

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. Article was created by a banned user. FloNight♥♥♥ 17:33, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Deborah Mayer

Deborah Mayer (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Brought here as a result of a post at WP:ANI. Grade school teacher who lost her job over comments about "honking for peace".. WP:BLP1E would appear to apply. Deiz talk 06:35, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

• I am absolutely outraged that you dare imply that not considering this article as notable is some kind of symptom of living in a country that's not "democratic enough". Delete per nomination. But what do I know, I'm just a filthy Untermensch. --Agamemnon2 12:07, 3 October 2007 (UTC) Sorry about that. --Agamemnon2 11:25, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Note - above comment refers in part to a comment posted by Mightyms (talk · contribs), removed per WP:POINT, WP:NOT#SOAPBPOX. Deiz talk 13:39, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

• This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 10:25, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per WP:BLP1E; NN person. —Preceding unsigned comment added by NASCAR Fan24 (talk • contribs) 10:41, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Brookie :) - he's in the building somewhere! ^(Whisper...) 12:16, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Any particular reason?--chaser - t 20:12, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. If the bio cannot be expanded per BLP1E, move it as an important legal case. Mayer v. Monroe County was a significant test case for free speech in school and of political dissent. The article covers the case adequately. • Gene93k 12:55, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

• Keep, potentially move to Mayer v. Monroe County, which appears to have moved the goalposts a little bit wrt free speech for public employees. It was denied cert by the Supreme Court, effectively upholding the case law. --Dhartung | Talk 17:23, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
• Note to closing admin. There are a lot of comments of mine about BLP in the page history. I don't feel particularly strongly about it, and editors here appear to be considering the BLP implications.--chaser - t 20:12, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Sorry but I must disagree, the WP:BLP1E essay does not apply in this case; the subject is notable. Burntsauce 21:47, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
  • That section isn't an essay. It's part of the policy.--chaser - t 01:07, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
    • It is both an essay and contested piece of policy which a portion of the community believes should be merged into the notability guideline (also not a policy). Thanks, Burntsauce 17:15, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
      • I think we're talking past each other. I meant essay in the Wikipedia sense, "not a policy or guideline". In any case, the discussion indicates that there's little disagreement about the thrust of BLP1E. I'm not sure what you mean about the guideline reference. We still follow guidelines, even if we're more easygoing about making exceptions to them.--chaser - t 17:49, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
• Keep the subject is notable because of the change in legal position, and I just adjusted the quote to remove the remaining one or two problematic words, without changing the meaning. I additionally agree with Chaser's previous changes in the article. BLP was indeed a concern, and has now been addressed. DGG (talk) 21:54, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
• Weak Keep incident is notable, individual less so...but lacking an incident page, this will suffice. JJL 00:27, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. —David Eppstein 00:42, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
• Keep in some form. Notable enough but in an ideal world would be renamed and rewritten to conform to BLP- no prejudice against the nomination, which is technically correct, but per the much-abused WP:IAR it's better to have an article that doesn't quite conform to policy but doesn't otherwise do any harm than no article at all. Kudos to whomever removed Mightyms' steaming pile of insulting ill-informed sh... erm, comment. Badgerpatrol 02:05, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
• move & redirect to Mayer v. Monroe County, the case is notable, she is not. Pete.Hurd 04:55, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete or Move I agree with the nominating editor, Deiz, in that WP:BLP1E does apply and this woman clearly is only notable for this one incident, however it seems that the case itself is notable due to the change in legislation, so perhaps move it to the relevant court case name. Phgao 10:16, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete or (merge and redirect) - subject article is WP:BLP1E --Sc straker 17:40, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

At the bottom:

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.