Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brenda McKenna

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. Consensus is for "keep" despite the subject's request. Pending changes is currently applied and appropriate layers of protection can be requested in the future at WP:RFPP. Hopefully some folks in this discussion will watchlist this page for mischief. (non-admin closure) Dclemens1971 (talk) 16:23, 22 April 2026 (UTC)

Brenda McKenna

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

• How to contribute
• Introduction to deletion process
• Guide to deletion (glossary)
• Help, my article got nominated for deletion!

Brenda McKenna (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

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

The subject of this article has requested deletion after removing defamatory content from the article that had persisted for two months. Although she did hold public office, she does not appear to meet GNG. Even though former politicians are excluded from BLPREQUESTDELETE, I would ask the community to honor the spirit of the policy here and consider granting the request on privacy grounds. Those editors with VRT access may reference ticket:2026041410014831. ⇌ Jake Wartenberg 15:09, 15 April 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and New Mexico. ⇌ Jake Wartenberg 15:09, 15 April 2026 (UTC)
• Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Women-related AfD discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:10, 15 April 2026 (UTC)
• Keep Former state legislators are public figures and meet WP:NPOL. TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 15:46, 15 April 2026 (UTC)
• Keep with pending changes for an indefinite time The major issue seems to be an issue not involving herself personally, but her spouse who has no article qualifiers, and the solution to that is to make sure that information remains out of the article rather than full deletion. Nathannah • 📮 16:29, 15 April 2026 (UTC)
• Comment I'd say Wikipedia doesn't gain a lot by having this article on a state legislator who served for four years, which is entirely sourced to primary sources and an interview. NPOL is supposed to be a presumption of notability, not a mandate. So far as a project we have failed the subject by allowing unsourced, horribly defamatory content to remain in the article for months with attempts to remove it actually reverted as "unexplained content removal". AusLondonder (talk) 16:50, 15 April 2026 (UTC)
• Keep per WP:NPOL. WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE explicitly excludes current/former elected officials, and the issue here is not with the article itself but with defamatory content (read: BLP violations) which went unreverted; the solution here is pending changes, not deletion. — chrs [talk] 18:35, 15 April 2026 (UTC)

  There should also be some revdel certainly done with those edits. Nathannah • 📮 22:47, 15 April 2026 (UTC)

• Keep per WP:NPOL. I can't say I agree with the "spirit of the policy" argument when this type of case is directly, explicitly addressed by the letter of the policy. Agree that pending changes/revdel is the way to go here. DiscoursesonLivvy (talk · contribs) 00:32, 16 April 2026 (UTC)
• Keep (begrudgingly). NPOL is pretty clear and this would not be the place to unilaterally change that policy/consensus. I think a more appropriate course here is a form of long-term protection for the article to prevent a continued coat-hanging. I will add this to my WatchList. If we are curious why I am a deletionist, this kind of nonsense plays a big role. I am sorry the subject has had to deal with this though.--Mpen320 (talk) 16:21, 16 April 2026 (UTC)
• Administrator note: I've deleted the revisions in question per WP:RD2. Elli (talk | contribs) 20:59, 17 April 2026 (UTC)

• Keep but also with pending changes for the indefinite future. The subject was a member of the upper chamber of a state legislature; she had tremendous power and was a public figure. Considering that the issues were entirely family-related in some way, pending changes (or other strong edit protection) would be warranted. Bearian (talk) 14:46, 19 April 2026 (UTC)
• Keep with pending changes for the indefinite future. We should edit the artcle with more independent sources. --Enos733 (talk) 16:29, 19 April 2026 (UTC)

  Added some independent sources. - Enos733 (talk) 16:51, 19 April 2026 (UTC)

• Keep, meets NPOL which should always be enough. No opinion on how article is written. Yoblyblob (Talk) :) 16:57, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

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.