Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Natalie Khawam

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
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 delete. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:51, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Natalie Khawam

[edit]
Natalie Khawam (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)

Classic case of WP:BLP1E. A relatively unknown socialite who happened to be the twin sister of someone who got more involved in the Petraeus scandal. Khawam has done nothing of note herself and coverage is all centered around this one event (the scandal). She has been friends with notable people. Her sister, Jill Kelley, is much higher profile (meaning that her name is a punchline) but her BLP was recently deleted as BLP1E [1], which doesn't give this one much hope. Niteshift36 (talk) 14:58, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there Niteshift: Please withdraw your nomination and let's:

  • Keep the article because: (1) You should have made yourself very clear then and not dragged other stuff in to befuddle your point. Every article stands on its own merits and Natalie Khawam deserves her own WP article at this point because she is WP:N with all the WP:RS and WP:V coming out by the thousands in the reliable media every day at the present time. (2) Kindly note, that WP:NOTPAPER we have room for this and much more. (3) In any case, this is clearly not a case of a flash-in-the-pan BLP1E because there is just too much media and verifiable sources being churned out. (4) This person Natalie Khawam only came to light after the resignation of David Petraeus on November 9th, 2012, barely 12 days ago (her name came out a few days later, so we maybe know her for 7 days, and on that basis you feel confident enough to delete?), but how can you or anyone make a judgment of her notability in the context of the scandal when the scandal itself has only been public knowledge for about 12 days only and how can anyone rush to delete and exclude the main players in this serious event. (5) Natalie Khawam had deep enough personal relationships with both Geberals David Petraeus and John R. Allen that they went to bat for her in court. (6) She has lobbied and been in the White House at least three times. (7) She has had serious relationships with political fundraisers and politicians such as US Senators John Kerry and Marco Rubio and many others. (8) She is an attorney and was married to and very involved in the work of her former husband Grayson Wolfe, an important person in the former George W. Bush administration. (9) Natalie Khawam lives with her sister Jill Kelley and they have hosted and participate in important political events together. (10) How any one can jump to conclusions and want to zap a growing article about her as she is obviously a key player in the Petraeus scandal as it unfolds is just incredible, unless someone is trying to be an apologist or something for them and wants to stop WP from doing what it does best, grow as an encyclopedia that deals with verifiable and notable facts and personalities, even if we come to know publicly about them 12 days ago. Thank you, IZAK (talk) 16:58, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • #1) I was clear, you just read what you wanted to read.
#2) WP:NOTPAPER doesn't apply here. That's not the issue. What IS the issue is WP:N and WP:BLP1E
#3) Apparently you struggle with what BLP1E means. The sheer volume of coverage is not the issue. The issue is that she is a non-notable person, caught in a notable event, a single notable event.
#4) While you complain about a rush to judgement, you ignore your rush to publish. Don't publish until they pass notability.
#5) A relationship with notable people, no matter how deep and personal (no matter how much you overstates it), is not grounds for notability. Notability is not inherited.
#6) Lobbying and visiting the White House? You really want to use that as an indicator of notability? SMH.
#7) Again, relationships with notable people don't make you notable. Have you even read the policies?
#8) Being an attorney doesn't make you notable, nor does marrying one. Once again you submit "evidence" that is contrary to Wikipedia policy.
#9) Hosting and attending parties? Really? That's even weaker than 6.
#10) See 4. If you're going to repeat your arguments, I'll repeat my answers. Niteshift36 (talk) 17:15, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • You know what Niteshift this reminds of how much WP can slip out of reality and trump itself, and why there is also a thing out there called WP:IGNORE and we need to use our brains, when policies trump facts when its policies are misapplied. Major events unfold, often at lightening speed in today's media world of instant online information, and here we have a major political (sex) scandal in which heads are rolling, careers come crashing down that -- without in-depth informative and well-researched articles about the twins Jill Kelley and Natalie Khawam -- would make it seem that David Petraeus lost his head and lost his reputation because he may as well have met a lady walking a dog in a park (truly not notable, or she may even have once been notable) and because of that all came crashing down. How is anyone supposed to understand, let alone write, encyclopedic articles involving a set of key players, when all one is allowed to do is talk about a guy who is famous for 37 years but not about some females who have brought him down. These were not just street corner anonymous women, but as the articles and media resources show they are very complicated and powerful players in their own right. So to mention this and that silly detail about them, is like saying "they wear short skirts" or "no skirts at all" but it does not help to describe and explain to the public coming to WP to read and learn and understand what the heck is going on, if important supporting articles are just chucked based on some ethereal WP policy that stands in the way of WP itself functioning as an encyclopedia not just about the old past but about current events as they happen and they they unfold. IZAK (talk) 17:40, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I am using my brain, which is why this turd non-notable article is nominated. As for the rest of your response, apparently you fail to understand that this is an encyclopedia, not a newspaper. Niteshift36 (talk) 17:50, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Niteshift: You miss the point, I have no desire to be a newspaper or "reporter" and never have been. The point is to describe and explain what happened in the complex Petraeus scandal in which Natalie Khawam and her sister Jill Kelley are undeniably key players. That is the point that needs to be researched and deserves its place in an encyclopedia that is dealing with this subject as it unfolds. Neither you nor anyone on WP can cherry pick and decide who they like and don't like fitting into this saga. It is happening outside of WP whether we like it or not. The only thing WP can do as an encyclopedia is to describe and explain what is going on, and for WP itself newspapers are to be used as WP:RS. WP does not only consult dusty old books, research papers or other defunct encyclopedias, because WP is a living developing body of online work that takes in all verifiable and reliable and accurate truthful information be it from newspapers or anywhere else, I am not creating "news" I am citing when need be as required by WP policies, and that has been done in this case in big doses in spite of all the deprecations to the contrary. IZAK (talk) 18:01, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You say you don't view Wikipedia as a newspaper, yet you said "the public coming to WP to read and learn and understand what the heck is going on". That sounds very present-tense, newspaper like to me. Regardless, you are confusing WP:V with WP:N. Just because we know something and a news outlet covered it, doesn't make it notable in and of itself. If Justin Bieber buys a new hat today, 100 news outlets will cover it. That won't make the event notable. The event is notable, everyone involved is not, especially not the lesser involved sister. Niteshift36 (talk) 18:10, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Niteshift. The analogy with Justin Bieber's hat is bad because here it's about an affair that was uncovered that stems from the email of Jill Kelley, that (a) led to the unmasking of Paula Broadwell and brought down the head of the CIA (Petraeus) and (b) Kelley's voluminous email also damaged the career of another general, John R. Allen beyond repair. This chain of events came from Kelley, was ignited by her, she is the trigger, it's not like Bieber buying a hat or dumping a girlfriend, Kelley's actions by getting the FBI involved behavior and history brought down the CIA chief and ruined General Allen, and her sister Natalie Khawam is directly linked to her, and in turn is linked to the two generals Petraeus and Allen. The two sisters are twins and deserve two articles because there is more than enough material to fill two separate articles about them. There cannot be "events" without people, and in this case the people, by dint of the depth of their involvement, there are these two sisters, no matter how unappetizing it is what is being reported, like the stain of semen that Clinton left on Monica Lewinsky's dress (a better analogy than proverbial Bieber's hat) that resulted from oral sex it is important forensic evidence that Clinton could not deny the affair and that got him impeached even though Monica was just a lowly intern and got famous by working in the White House and not by doing anything else than wearing thongs or nothing under her dresses, that's not just about newspapers reporting what happened, but all the US intelligence agencies, law enforcement, and courts have dealt with and are dealing with. The papers merely report this, they do not "create" this and neither do we. Current events do not have to be about major people only to be worthy of articles on WP, there are many lesser degrees of people who interact with the higher ups that are important too in the greater scheme of things, and it is a pity that WP policies will be misused to stop the full development of encyclopedia articles about all the major players involved in the scandal. IZAK (talk) 19:16, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, clearly you are convinced you're right and I can assure you that your repeating yourself won't result in me withdrawing the nomination, so continuing this is pointless. Niteshift36 (talk) 19:27, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Indenting complicated due to outdent: This is a response to IZAK's 16:58 comment) Hi there. Under Izak's criteria, I demand my own Wikipedia article. I've met all sorts of important people. And yeah, I know, maybe there's not so much you could write about me right now, but I'm only 16. Won't you regret it if you don't make an article on me now, and realize later that you should have? I mean, it's not like we have any way to restore previous versions of articles when their subjects finally meet the notability criteria, so if we don't get a head start now, we'll never catch up. — Francophonie&Androphilie (Je vous invite à me parler) 17:35, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Huh? At least User:Niteshift responds to my points while you make no sense with your feeble attempt at comedy when we are in the middle of serious discussion. Obviously, unlike the ones who want to chop out this article, BOTH Generals David Petraeus and John R. Allen as well as BOTH Senators John Kerry and Marco Rubio think and act like Natalie Khawam is a VIP, they are not waiting for WP to tell them who is important in their social political, and sex lives. Plenty of media about this. This lady has clout, don't make fun of her. IZAK (talk) 17:50, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • My very point is that knowing important people doesn't make you notable. And your definition of "clout" seems to be just that - I'm very glad, IZAK, that the generals and the senators are not basing their sexual decisions off of Wikipedia; Wikipedia, however, should not be basing its content off of their sexual decisions. What I'm trying to say is that if we based our articles off of who people know, I'd be more or less just as worthy of inclusion as Ms. Khawam. But we don't, for that very reason. I'm not going to be dignifying your insults with a response. Also, please not revise your own comments after others have replied to them. — Francophonie&Androphilie (Je vous invite à me parler) 18:08, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. IZAK (talk) 16:58, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. IZAK (talk) 01:45, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Wikipedia is not a newspaper, and has different standards for who we have articles about. There have been lots of breathless and prurient tabloidish articles about the breaking news story. That is not the stuff a good encyclopedia is made of. Clear case of WP:BLP1E. If she and her sister in the future become as frequently on the covers of supermarket tabloids as the Kardashians, then we can reconsider. Edison (talk) 17:07, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - agree with nom that this is a classic BLP1E case and a pseudo biography. If in 6 months time, articles about here are still being published she may be truly notable, but it is too soon to decide this at the moment. SmartSE (talk) 17:16, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - as per the nom and Smartse and Edison, that this is a classic BLP1E case and a pseudo biography and EN Wikipedia is not a newspaper, and has different standards for who we have biographies/life stories about. - Youreallycan 17:54, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete Per nominator, BLP1E through and through, no independent referencing. Fails WP:BIO --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 20:01, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete My god, this is a classic BLP1E and NOTNEWS. "reportedly also friends with.." what? Seriously? IZAK's defense of this puff piece is all the more troubling, considering he is an established editor who should know better. §FreeRangeFrog 20:55, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yup, and because I am a serious editor I have a broader more in-depth view of the total picture in this historical event. Everything here is substantiated by WP:RS in the article. Too bad that people are focusing on a minor WP policy, that does not even apply here in any sense since it's designed to keep out genuinely tangential people, instead of what is really happening in the world. Reality trumps WP as far as I am concerned. IZAK (talk) 01:13, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • you have a broader view? Self-important much? I'm hardly a new or inexperienced editor my friend, nor are many of those who've already come here and agreed that this article should be deleted. Your answer is very telling. Niteshift36 (talk) 02:55, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • You know Niteshift, no one is obligated to go along with group think on WP. The previous user stated that I am "an established editor" and I affirmed that with my own statements. You know, we can always find a closing admin who will not interpret the will of most users' votes here, and make this a Keep, based on the way the 28 users who voted to Keep at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jill Kelley were over-ridden and the guy Deleted it on his own and to heck with what 28 Keeps voted. Would you object if suddenly an admin came along and kept this article in spite of all the Delete votes? WP has become such a topsy-turvy world with editors caught up in an artificial world of WP policies that they have no time to perceive and write about what's happening in the real world. One wonders why users are asked to express their views, and to write articles, if at the end of the day admins or policy wonks will do what they want and either delete or keep based on reasons that have nothing to do with AfD discussions and votes. And WP wonders why it cannot get the same numbers of people writing articles and maintaining them. I think it's pretty obvious why, when the entire job of writing, sourcing and defending articles is shot down on a whim. It's only since November 9th that this story came out, that's exactly 13 days ago, yet you are so sure that this is not notable. Amazing. Let me ask you by the way, if this article gets deleted because some think it's "tabloid" then should all mention of Natalie Khawam be chopped out of all other articles even though she and her sister Jill Kelley are joined at the hip in more ways than one? Even if it was the stuff of tabloids (and it's much more than that), WP has room for that AFAIK. Thanks, IZAK (talk) 20:50, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Apparently, you only hear what you want to hear, regardless of what is actually said. I never said you have to engage in any "group think". What I took issue with is your assertion that you somehow have a broader view that makes you think this should be kept. For that to be true, that means all those who disagree with you have a narrow view and that, my friend, is an arrogant assertion. What you appear to have not considered at all is that you are simply wrong. But this AfD might cure that. As for the rest of your bitching and moaning rambling spiel about a different AfD.....well, you can pack all that up and take it to the DRV. It has no place here. Niteshift36 (talk) 21:17, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I just can't see how the subject gets past WP:BLP1E. Sure, there are plenty of sources but they are all based on the same single event or they were prompted by the same single event. Even those sources that provide a "retrospective" profile of the subject obviously wouldn't have done so had the single event not happened. They have been written because readers are notionally interested in the people involved in a particular event - "here's some background on this person involved with this event". That, to me, is the very definition of "1E". Stalwart111 04:02, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete Incidental figure in an ongoing scandal. Jill Kelley is arguably notable. Khawam is not. I'm not even sure this level of coverage meets WP:BIO, before anyone makes any claims about BLP1E. JoshuaZ (talk) 04:26, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Destroy with Fire per nom, Edison, YRC, etc. Wikipedia is not a tabloid. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:35, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:08, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No assertion of notability. Mackensen (talk) 02:51, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • This review is a waste of time There was a clear 2 to 1 consensus (or more) in favour of keeping the article for this subject's far more notable sister yet that article was deleted anyway. Closing admins are evidently not bound to respecting the community consensus, meaning that if you are not an admin, please spend your time elsewhere. Nothing you could say here is going to keep this article from being deleted.--Brian Dell (talk) 22:44, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • um, Brian, what are you ranting about? This is the AfD for Natalie. This is not a review. If you want to opine on the matter of Jill kelly, then go there. Thus far, This AfD has a very clear consesus that e subject isn't notable.Niteshift36 (talk) 23:06, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Call it a "discussion" then if "review" is reserved for more formal usage. I see AfDs as "reviews" of the nominator's call to delete. This is very clearly related to Jill Kelley in that if the Kelley article is deleted then this one is WP:SNOWBALL. I'll quote from that policy to make my point here explicit: "If an issue does not have a snowball's chance in hell of being accepted by a certain process, there's no need to run it through the entire process."--Brian Dell (talk) 23:33, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Snow may very well fall here, but not because of the DRV or the Jill Kelly article. This article is getting delete !votes because she is a non-notable person who hangs around notable people. Totally and completely divorced of the Kelly article, this subject is non-notable. That's why we're here.Niteshift36 (talk) 23:42, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It's not 100% guaranteed to be deleted independent of the Jill Kelley deletion. That deletion makes it 100%. Unless the people involved in this one are "totally and completely divorced' from the deletion of the Kelley article, these "votes" don't matter, so enough with the charade of soliciting them.--Brian Dell (talk) 23:53, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Exactly what are you suggesting I have solicited here? If you have something to say, be specific and back it up. If not, withdraw your allegation. Niteshift36 (talk) 00:01, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You initiated this by calling attention to the precedent of the Jill Kelley deletion. See the top of the page. I'll withdraw my insinuation that that deletion predisposed this review/discussion if you withdraw your nomination and leave it to editors and admins who are, in fact, "totally and and completely divorced" from the Jill Kelley article to get this article deleted.--Brian Dell (talk) 00:19, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Your false allegation ignores the blatantly obvious: I didn't solicit anything. I didn't seek out and notify anyone, save the author (who is the sole keep !vote), as it is considered polite to do so. I made the obvious analogy. If I remove that sentence, not a bit about the nom will change, nor would any one of these votes. Now, if you really want to make a soliciting/canvassing allegation, you should talk to the sole keep voter who placed the link to this in the DRV about the other article. THAT is someone hoping that the support he may find there will spill over here. Or you can take that false allegation to ANI. I could use the laugh. In short, spare me your incorrect bad-faith allegations. Niteshift36 (talk) 00:34, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
An accusation of hypocrisy is not an accusation of canvassing. You kicked off this back and forth by saying that my references to the Jill Kelley deletion were unwelcome here, yet you kicked off this whole discussion by pointing readers towards the Jill Kelley deletion. A clear consensus here is not proof that your "nom would have stood on its own" equally clearly because that's a hypothetical. I stand by my view that as it stands right now a deletion verdict here is inevitable.--Brian Dell (talk) 01:33, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
you said a charade of soliciting them. Where did I solicit any vote? You've misrepresnted what I actually said and wasted a bunch of time. What you have failed to do thus far is opine on the topic of the damn discussion. Instead of contributing to that matter, you've just been a disruption. Stand by your false allegation all you want. It isn't my credibility that is being degraded. Niteshift36 (talk) 06:56, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Niteshift, no matter which way you try to spin it, for whatever reason, there is no way that the Petraeus scandal article could and should contain the growing and important details about the five main players so far: Jill Kelley, Paula Broadwell; David Petraeus; John R. Allen; Natalie Khawam. See for example this latest New York Times article about the five of them and their uniqueness: Second Act of a Scandal: Cue the Superlawyers and the Spinmasters (Published: November 20, 2012) with important photos of and information about all five. This is a big story and it is about time that attackers of this topic back off, stop their obfuscation and WP:LAWYERING, and let editors who are able and willing to develop these key articles do their job instead of standing in the way of WP performing its role as a reliable encyclopedia in this vital subject. Thanks, IZAK (talk) 01:27, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"This is a big story" - yes, but it's still one event. I probably overuse the analogy but Conrad Murray was not notable for being a doctor (or a friend) to Michael Jackson before his death - that's why his "biography" doesn't exist. His name redirects to Trial of Conrad Murray - the article about the one event that caused him to be covered here. Even the "reliable sources" provided to verify her previous activity refer this subject's appearances as "22 minutes of fame". She was not notable before this event and she is now receiving coverage because of this event. Had this one event not happened, she would remain entirely non-notable and we would never consider having an article about her. That's pretty much right in the ballpark of WP:BLP1E. No-one is suggesting that the Petraeus scandal is non-notable, nor that those involved should be covered there. But we don't need to cover her previous cooking show appearances here, there or anywhere else and we certainly don't need a biographical article to rehash (again) the Petraeus scandal but with the addition of a bunch of irrelevant trivia about an otherwise non-notable person. Stalwart111 01:54, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment if Jill Kelley is undeleted (see the DRV discussion), then this should merge and redirect there. If not, it should be deleted as a BLP1E (two generals signing an affadavit for her, on the intervention of her sister) and redirected to the Petraeus scandal article, as a viable search term. -- 70.24.250.26 (talk) 05:46, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • This points up the proper dividing line for BIO1E cases nicely. Her sister is notable despite BIO1E, while the subject, for the reason mentioned by so many above, is not. I refrain from an full delete endorsement only in acknowledgement of the excellent point made by the anonymous poster above - if the Kelly article is restored a protected redirect is appropriate,otherwise delete. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 07:17, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Clearly notable, for more than one event. More of her story is coming out weekly. --Unindicted co-conspirator (talk) 16:37, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • NOTIFICATION: WP:VPP has received a notification of the discussions that relate to this page and the policy of WP:BLP1E. See Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#How to apply WP:BLP1E or not [2]. Thank you, IZAK (talk) 20:15, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Very obviously falls foul of BLP1E. Formerip (talk) 21:35, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and move the discussion to the talk page of the article  Deletion nominations should take care to protect the material in our encyclopedia, as we are here to build an encyclopedia.  One way they can do this is by analyzing the [WP:Alternatives to deletion].  The current nomination argument shows no content deriving from WP:BEFORE.  Nor does it expand on the basic theory of how Wikipedia deals with the combination of a non-notable topic and reliable material about that non-notable topic.  This deficiency is so great in this case that because of the alternatives to deletion that are available, there is no deletion to discuss here, either of the redirect or the edit history.  Any close here other then keep or speedy keep will encourage more defective nominations and more wasted time by AfD volunteers.  Unscintillating (talk) 23:47, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Any close here other than what you want is defective? Seriously? Because clearly yours is the only opinion that counts. Niteshift36 (talk) 03:20, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to the scandal article for now. I don't see enough material in this near-stub for her own article. Tijfo098 (talk) 13:05, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete- per WP:BLP1E. This is a textbook case. Reyk YO! 04:29, 29 November 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/Natalie_Khawam&oldid=1082622802"