Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Audrey Tomason

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 redirect to The Situation Room (photograph). There is consensus that this should not (currently) be a standalone article per WP:BLP1E, but no clear consensus to delete outright instead of merge. Under these circumstances, a redirect without deletion allows editors to sort this out via further discussion and to merge what may be needed from the history. Sandstein 05:33, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Audrey Tomason[edit]

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

Textboox WP:BLP1E. Random policy wonk happens to be in the room when a photograph is snapped, said photograph happens to cause a minor kerfuffle when a foreign conservative religious newspaper censors out her and Hillary' image. Ms. Tomason herself isn't really the subject of the google news hits, it is the photoshopping itself that has become notable. For those that are about to mount a spirited defense of the "but the Director for Counterterrorism for the National Security Council it notable!", I'd note that nether she nor her position is listed at United States National Security Council, and that much of the coverage that does touch on her is of the "wow, she has a Wikipedia article? i.e. here. In fact, that article notes that she was one of a half-dozen low-level people in the vicinity. If she wasn't standing at the right spot at the right time (and happened to be female; a male would not have been 'shopped), there would have been no proverbial 15 minutes. 1E to a T. Tarc (talk) 17:17, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - We don't get to decide whom history shines a spotlight on. She is notable now, and forevermore. jengod (talk) 17:36, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- That's nice, but feel free to address the actual deletion rationale; WP:BLP1E. What has this person done that is deemed notable, besides be erased from a photograph? Fee free to consider a dash of WP:NOTNEWS as well. Tarc (talk) 17:38, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Being present in this photograph is obviously extremely notable... unless you believe that the White House successfully assassinating a global terrorist leader after a ten year manhunt is a routine event, and that Tomason was just delivering a pizza. I've been trying to learn more about her since the first time I saw that picture (because she appears to be one of the two youngest people in the room, and one of only two women) and came to Wikipedia to see what I could learn here. I was happy to find an article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.153.180.229 (talk) 17:51, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This isn't a textbook case of BLP1E. A textbook case would be a typical case. But this one isn't typical but untypically obvious. Absolutely nothing to see here. Hans Adler 17:56, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no objection to a redirect to the The Situation Room (photograph) article - no objection to recreation at a time when or if there are more than a WP:BLP1E to report. Off2riorob (talk) 18:36, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Being present in this photograph is not enough to warrant a wikipedia entry according to the notability policy. In fact the policy uses a hypothetical case very much like this one as an example of who is not noteworthy. Subject would need to be mentioned in several stories on several topics according to the published policy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Djkernen (talk • contribs) 18:38, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Clearly notable for only one event. Obviously, re-create if that changes. Furthermore, I'd have no problem with a redirect -- to the anon IP's point above, if someone comes to Wikipedia looking for information on this person, they might be satisfied with finding that information housed in the The Situation Room (photograph) article. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 18:41, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Clear BLP1E situation. Tomason, while obviously an accomplished young woman, does not have a public-facing role, has never been interviewed in her capacity as Director, and does not even have any biographical or contact information on the White House website. (She is part of the executive staff, not the NSC, as far as I can tell.) Her job falls into a liaison or clearinghouse area. I would not be surprised if she later rises to a notable position, but that time is not now. --Dhartung | Talk 19:10, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - about as WP:BLP1E as you can get. Subject not otherwise notable per WP:BIO. ukexpat (talk) 20:17, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
After reviewing the Daily Mail article, for now I elect into merging into the The Situation Room (photograph) article, because there are now reliable secondary sources about the speculation and her notability stemming from the recent coverage and the photograph. This does not have to do with the Ultra Orthodox coverage. Check my edits, and you will see exactly what is being discussed about her. WhisperToMe (talk) 20:58, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- A user swiftly removed the paragraph I posted. I'm going to post it in my userspace, and let people look at it and decide for themselves whether it is appropriate. I am strictly basing the paragraph off of the secondary sources I am finding. WhisperToMe (talk) 21:05, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay, take a look at User:WhisperToMe/Tomason
- I understand that it's not Wikipedia's role to be a tabloid or to pry too deeply into things, and I do not think there is enough substance for a standalone article yet, but it sounds like there is speculation about the woman based on the photo, and we need to convey that somewhere, somehow on Wikipedia
- WhisperToMe (talk) 21:12, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'd love to see that in the article on the photograph -- interesting stuff! I have no problem with a merge/redirect. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 21:21, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just put the info at The Situation Room (photograph), on the suggestion of the user :) - I also support a merge/redirect. WhisperToMe (talk) 21:27, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And I reverted you. We don't need this ridiculous gossip and conspiracy stuff at any article. Hans Adler 21:42, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Gossip is "idle"/"light" speculation (see http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/gossip ). Based on the sources that I found, there has been discussion about particular implication's for the woman's career and the fact that she had not been known to the public before the photo came out are not "fluff."

I think it's clear that this won't be a standalone article, but I think in regards to the Situation Room photo the speculation about Tomason needs to be taken seriously, since various secondary source publications are reporting about it in detail in multiple articles.

WhisperToMe (talk) 21:51, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speculations that a woman who appears in an official White House photo, taken by an official White House photographer and officially released to the press, that such a women is super secret and her career is destroyed because now her face is public are so incredibly asinine that they have no business in an encyclopedia. Except perhaps when someone really notable makes them and we can report the ridicule by others. Newspapers want to be sold to readers, so they have different criteria. Hans Adler 21:56, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~Strong keep~~ merge Director for Counterterrorism for the National Security Council hunting terrorists is a notable position. She is notable for her position and one event does not apply to that. Surely a notable position especially considering the U.S. is fighting a "War on terror" involving hundreds of thousands of people and Director for Counterterrorism is a key position in all of that. IQinn (talk) 23:08, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the war on terror involves hundreds of thousands of people. I would add that not all of them are notable. In the article on the United States National Security Council, her position is currently listed as, essentially, "others as necessary." Please note: there is a Senior Director of Counterterrorism position currently listed in the United States National Security Council article -- one can surmise that this is her boss -- and it is currently a redlink. For all you/we know, there are multiple "Directors of Counterterrorism." Prove me wrong. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 23:20, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you are right Nick Rasmussen seems to be her boss. Why wasn't he in the picture? IQinn (talk) 00:04, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Because it is a candid snapshot of a single moment of the meeting, not a posed photograph. As several sources note, she just happened to be standing there at that ti,e, and that there were a half-dozen other NSC members nearby, equally anonymous. Tarc (talk) 01:06, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Changed to merge even though i guess it might be recreated in a few month or years when more information about her and her involvement in the hunt for OBL becomes available. IQinn (talk) 01:20, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and redirect. The articles would very excellent sources if it wasn't that what all of them say is that they don't know anything about her. I guess that could spark some notability in the not so far future, but it just hasn't happened yet. The photoshop incident is covered already at the target - frankieMR (talk) 01:08, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 18:16, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep She is notable for more than one event. The WP:BLP1E doesn't apply. She appears to be notable. The fact she's in the photo speaks for itself. --MarsRover (talk) 19:24, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
What's the second event she is notable for? Hans Adler 19:30, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
1) getting in the situation photo 2) being cropped out by Ultra Orthodox newspapers. These are not the same event. --MarsRover (talk) 23:11, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oh dear - please help wikipedia to overcome the detriment to the project through the increasing commenters that support outside of policy - all experienced contributors should comment to reduce such keep votes and administrators should not count votes but strongly close in consideration of wikipedia policy and guidelines. the "I like it its interesting to me and I don't have an interest in wikipedia policy or wikipedias protection and development - I like it and I want it to be hosted on wikipedia false keep comments. Off2riorob (talk) 23:21, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, quick squelch the dissent before it gets out of control. I didn't state any of the things you implied. Perhaps we need less of those comments for the sake of wikipedia. --MarsRover (talk) 23:45, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Being a head with a caption in the initial photograph is not an event. Please try to keep the AfD rationales within the bounds of common sense. Tarc (talk) 01:04, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No, those are not two separate events. The photograph is the event, and her notability flows exclusively from the photograph. Describing every single thing that happens with regard to the photograph and her relationship to it doesn't mean you're describing multiple events, you're just describing multiple details of a single event -- and the event is a photograph. In order to pass BLP1E, a person must be notable for separate, not directly related (ie "separate") events. There are clearly common sense exceptions that can be made to what I've just said (e.g. John Wilkes Booth), but I'm completely confident you haven't discovered one of them with your argument. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 01:32, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Ginseng for the providing an insightful comment that is actually possible to reply to. I don't completely agree but I changed my Keep to a Weak Keep. In the actual BLP1E policy I don't see the word "separate" used in describing the events. Nor the idea of notability flowing from one event to the next. I don't disagree with you. I sounds like a good way to describe multiple events ("famous photo" and "newspapers editing out out our political figures") that should be considered one event. But the policy doesn't actually say that. --MarsRover (talk) 04:04, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Director for Counterterrorism for the National Security sounds like a notable position to me. Appearance in the picture means she is highly notable for this one event but this does not seem to me to mean she can't be notable enough for us anyway given the importance of her job. It seems to me she is notable for this one event but that this is supported taking us beyond BLP1E. Also as an aside they were commenting on her in Have I got news for you on the TV in the UK and I wondered who she was. It was nice to find out here! User:WhisperToMe suggested additions here User:WhisperToMe/Tomason would also seem to me useful extra content. Merging into the The Situation Room (photograph) would seem to me just to be deletion as it would unbalance that article to have much more than her name there. (Msrasnw (talk) 11:17, 12 May 2011 (UTC))[reply]

Even if this article is kept we will not be adding that content here, it's a BLP (an encyclopedic style life story) and not a conspiracy speculative rumour article. That is the reason for its deletion as a one event. Also her unelected employment position does not assert any specific notability either, her job description and reported title is not a historic post in any way. All her current notability is related to the photograph and that is where until there is further details emerge or occur that is where in relation to wikipedia notability guidelines her name should redirect to.Off2riorob (talk) 11:37, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad you think the position "sounds" notable, but I think it's been effectively demonstrated multiple times in this AfD that the position is not notable. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 15:05, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, and preferably, redirect to The Situation Room (photograph). It still is useful to identify her in the context of the now-infamous photograph. If her notability rises above a little photoshopping in a minor newspaper, however, I would accept article recreation. Peter (talk) 19:09, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to The Situation Room (photograph), assuming that remains as an article; Delete otherwise: She just plain doesn't meet WP:BIO yet, even if she might in the future. Right now the only thing that makes her interesting to anyone is the game of "Who's that leftover person in this photo that's hot right now?" — which will fade in the next month unless she appears somewhere else. Her source-verifiable notability comes solely from (possibly inadvertently) appearing in a photo where everyone else is arguably notable; that's already covered by WP:NOTINHERITED and WP:BLP1E. We don't have a separate article for Andrew Giuliani because of his (well-known and more active) appearance in his dad's inauguration footage in 1994. Other arguments that have been given for Audrey Tomason being notable right now, but are mostly based on assumptions:
1. Even though we don't know her, she must be key to this operation, or she wouldn't have been there: But drawing a direct line between those two is hasty generalization fallacy — she could have not been there 15 seconds before or after, and come in with other new information right at that moment. Being familiar and useful enough to the other people in the room to stand in the room without being suspicious, and being of the executive decision level of the other people there, are two different things. There were
2. She must be someone important because words like "director" and "counterterrorism" were in the title applied to her in this photo: But we have no idea what "director" means in that section of the government, and someone else already pointed out that there is a "Senior Director" that is someone else, and we have no idea how many "directors" there are, and no evidence that the title even means anything, rather than being one of those custom-created titles that executive-branch staff get so they don't have to spend minutes explaining their duties to everyone they come across somewhere else.
3. A couple of fringe newspapers edited her out: But they also edited Hillary Clinton out. That's about The Situation Room (photograph) and about women in society, but not about Tomason.

An analysis piece on The Atlantic two days ago pretty much explains the problem (though the author seems to take the opposition position, assuming that this Wikipedia article was already a done deal):

But what's fascinating is that Tomason wasn't actually the only young staff member in the room, Tommy Vietor, the National Security Council spokesperson, told me. "There is no mystery or story here," Vietor said in an email. "There were at least half a dozen people with similar profiles in the immediate vicinity where that photo was taken." Yet only one has a Wikipedia page. [...] I know the sit room's photograph's moment has passed, but I hadn't seen the presence of so many other staff members like Tomason noted anywhere.
— Madrigal, Alexis (2011-05-10). "The Other Audrey Tomasons in the Situation Room". The Atlantic.

--Closeapple (talk) 00:59, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/redirect to The Situation Room (photograph). She is only notable for being in that notable photograph, so clearly WP:BLP1E applies..—Chris!_c/t 21:40, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Obama has previously said that only a very small group of people in his government were informed about the operation, and that he did not even tell his own family such as the First Lady. Thus this means she is of such importance that she was allowed access to this extremely top secret information, otherwise she would have not been allowed to be there. A random young government employee would not be allowed to be there, even if the government says she just happened to be there. Also, the person who nominated this article for deletion claims that the photograph controversy landed her a wikipedia page, which is not true. The page was created before that, though in light of the photograph.Michael5046 (talk) 00:38, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Once it was actually happening there was no more reason to keep it so super-secret. Your second point: As you created the article on 4 May, I am sure you can tell us what your sources were at the time. The Daily Mail reported on this photo on 5 May, apparently based on the Flickr release of the photo, so presumably it was released on 4 May or earlier. Hans Adler 06:15, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It really doesn't matter whether Obama has said that "only a very small group of people" were aware of this. That doesn't automatically confer notability on that group of people. You may be right that she is "of such importance," but we are concerned about the Wikipedia definition of notability here. The notability guidelines do not care whether a "random young government employee" would or wouldn't be allowed to be there; they care whether or not the person at issue is notable, and in the case of a BLP they care whether or not the person at issue is notable for more than one event. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 07:53, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is a clear case of WP:BLP1E. Her title does sound impressive, but if it were as notable as some are saying, she would have been mentioned by reliable sources prior to the photo. She wasn't, which makes it pretty clear that this is a single event (and not even one that has anything to do with biography, just her gender). Primary sources such as alumni reports and organizational flowcharts that mention her name aren't a substitute for notable mention prior to this event.--Loonymonkey (talk) 21:35, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The information given here: [1] indicates 50,000+ people have looked at this page. This seems to me a lot and is, to me surprisingly more than [2], which is has only been viewed 25,000 times. I realise that this is not a relevant to addressing WP:BLP1E arguments but I raise it here because I think that we should at least bear in mind that we have been a source which very many might well have been glad of. Hope it is Ok to raise this and it doesn't contravene any rule. (Msrasnw (talk) 21:49, 14 May 2011 (UTC))[reply]

Actually the project was used in the beginning and unreliable content that was posted here was used to increase controversy regarding this living person and we were republished and cited and sadly became the primary false source - that speculative and original research was removed from our article and through that viewing figures were reduced - if you stick to the actual boring details you will get lower viewing figures - now that experienced editors are watching the article similar content has no chance of posting again - and viewing figures will be unaffected by a redirect to the photo article. Off2riorob (talk) 22:39, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge: Clearly WP:BLP1E applies, but the commentary in the international media means the individual is worth explicitly noting in The Situation Room (photograph) - Nigholith (talk) 00:29, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge: Sending readers to The Situation Room (photograph) seems exactly right to me. When people are curious about someone with a peripheral role in a major event, they look him or her up on Wikipedia, and those people should have the opportunity to find out what is reliably known about Tomason. There is no reason to scrub her from Wikipedia entirely -- there are too many "who is she?" articles out there. --Tbanderson (talk) 16:29, 16 May 2011 (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.