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. Noting that this is a BLP article, and that there has been substantial and obvious socking and/or meatpuppeting to inflate the "Keep" side of the argument. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 10:15, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Susan Lindauer[edit]

Susan Lindauer (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)

This BLP subject is notable only for her arrest. While it attracted some attention in RS, it is still just a BLP1E. There are some issues with the article's editing history that suggest the subject or someone close to the subject may be editing the article to push a different narrative than how the article currently reads. Since it is "one event" I suggest we IAR and delete Two kinds of pork (talk) 05:43, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:18, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:18, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:18, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Without wishing to comment on the general notability of Susan Lindauer, this use of the Patriot Act certainly is notable and so if it is decided to delete this article I'd like to suggest the full contents be included in the Patriot Act article which currently references it under "Controversies". While understanding that there is a heated debate over the facts and that her notability or otherwise is inextricable from this debate, I certainly found it interesting and informative. Right-Wing Hippy (talk) 20:27, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That might solve things, however I'm afraid we would have the same sort of editor delirium occurring at that article as we have at this one; that Lindauer was working undercover for the USGOVT as an agent for peace. Two kinds of pork (talk) 20:38, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I just read the article for the Patriot Act, then did some research on Lindauer. I cannot find anything in any reliable third-party source that talks about her arrest in the context of the Patriot Act. The charges she faced had nothing to do with the Patriot Act, and the most serious charge was for working as an unregistered lobbyist. Most of her court case focused on her fitness to stand trial. All standard stuff. There is no Patriot Act component verified by a reliable source, so including her in the Patriot Act article is not appropriate. SpringandFall (talk) 13:28, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, there is a Patriot Act component - but you need to know a bit about terror-law to find it. She was charged with Title 18 Section 2332d, financial actions related to terrorism, and the Patriot Act turned these ancilliary offenses into inchoate offenses, i.e. only the 'potential' for the crime to be committed needs to exist. This is how the Patriot Act affected her case. She was charged with 'pre-crime' à la Minority Report (movie), the movie.QualityFeet (talk) 08:58, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Deletion per WP:BLP1E requires that three specified conditions be met. In this instance, #2 is not met. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 14:16, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. #2 is quite satisfied. Lindauer, is extremely likely to remain a low profile individual. Considering the circumstances, any serious source will be unlikely to give her any coverage. Two kinds of pork (talk) 14:30, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:19, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• delete - i dont see significant coverage outside of the arrest incident and there is no indication that the individual is likely ever to be taken more seriously on their claims in the future than they have been to date. and if this were relevant aspect of the Patriot act there would be significant coverage and analysis of it - which there aint. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 19:49, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I disagree. There is a substantial following from her on You Tube and in blogs and therefore on many FaceBook posts. therefore many people are looking for a complete story and background on Ms Landauer. This is one of the core services of Wikipedia. If this is removed then people can not find this information. — Pursuing Truth (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

thats rather circular reasoning: that the article needs to be kept so that some non reliable blogosphere conspiracy theorist can find information to keep churning until their conspiracy theory is noticed and covered by reliable sources. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 09:58, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I agree that the conditions for deletion have been met. I see no convincing evidence that Lindauer was a CIA asset other than her own self-published assertions. There is no objective independent source or objective evidence that supports this narrative, and I think there would need to be to keep this article, or even to discuss the subject under the Patriot Act. I also agree with statements others have made that it appears there are some biased editors involved, possibly the subject herself. SpringandFall (talk) 19:02, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Even tho no one seems to be able to find proof of her claims, well known charlatans or liars are still part of Wikipedia. As someone said, the veracity of her claim doesn't really matter that much in this case. 79.136.64.95 (talk) 17:56, 2 September 2014 (UTC) — 79.136.64.95 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

except that the point of the matter is that she isn't among the "well known charlatans" - as the lack of coverage is evidence. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 10:00, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep it is true. If she is a charlatan then Wikipedia is a valuable resource to expose her. If the editing seems suspect then it should be proven. I for one would look to add more information if I find it that supports her assertions. CIA by its very nature clearly clandestine. Prooving a relationship is not easy. Particularly if what she is claiming is accurate then it would be even more clear that any link to CIA would removed to maintain the narrative that she is just a nut case. Removing the wikipedia listing will simple fortify the concept that she is telling the truth. Is this not obvious? — SpringandFall (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

I struck the "keep" as this editor voted twice in the same edit. I left the rationale unedited.Two kinds of pork (talk) 06:13, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• • also note that Wikipedia is not here to "expose charlatans". In fact doing so is strictly prohibited WP:ATTACK / BLP. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 20:49, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ashutosh4422 (talk • contribs) 12:14, 5 September 2014 (UTC) — ashutush442 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

• And your reason? .... –Davey2010 • (talk) 16:06, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Relisting comment: Relisted again as most votes here are SPA's.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Davey2010 • (talk) 16:08, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak delete - Other than irrelevant inherited "notability", this notability appears to relate one event - the subject's trial. All references relate to her trial. The trial itself is not sufficiently notable to warrant the independent article.--Rpclod (talk) 20:41, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom, as it meets all the notes outlined in WP:BLP1E. Aerospeed (Talk) 22:22, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and move to Susan Lindauer arrest. This is more properly an event concerning a living person, not a biography. If the subject arguably fails BLP1E, the 1E certainly meets GNG and IMHO has demonstrated it passes all criteria for WP:EVENT. Sources presented clearly demonstrate meeting GEOSCOPE, DIVERSE, PERSISTENCE, and INDEPTH. A reasonable case could be met that the event meets EFFECT, given the legal sources already applied to the page. BusterD (talk) 12:38, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment and question First, the socking/SPAing certainly is not helping either case on this process page. Second, there is a brief discussion on the nominator's talk page which seems to indicate there's a valid OTRS request from the subject to delete this pagespace. If true, why wasn't that concern presented during nomination? BusterD (talk) 13:02, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've no idea if there was an OTRS request filed. I think the conversation you are referring too suggested the subject could request OTRS.Two kinds of pork^Makin'_Bacon 15:15, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

My mistake. BusterD (talk) 00:54, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - fails notability as a person. Also smells of WP:promo for her book. 1292simon (talk) 11:45, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - WP:BLP1E fits (and says we "should generally avoid having an article"), although I could see a slight argument that point #2 doesn't 100% fit. However, we have WP:PERP which is an exact fit. The subject of the BLP was not convicted (and will not be), the victim is not a notable figure (as in person(s)), nothing all that unusual about motivation (alleged mental illness), and it has certainly not met "historic significance [as] indicated by sustained coverage of the event in reliable secondary sources which persists beyond contemporaneous news coverage and devotes significant attention to the individual's role". Tgeairn (talk) 03:58, 18 September 2014 (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.