Deletion of Vicki Iseman

Comment: WP:BLP1E.  Possible smerge to a short para in the McCain article, but this is not even a pretence at a biography, it's just a |coatrack
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Coatrack articles (WP:COAT)

Comment: The article provides background personal and career information on Iseman referenced from other sources that are not in the two other pages. Iseman is a public figure and now notable. Wikipedia has many "worthy" articles for lobbyists, just look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:American_lobbyists.  addresses the case when "relatively unimportant crime or for standing for governmental election" is discussed which is not the case here. Paula Jones and Brian McNamee similarly are "one event" articles but have risen to notability.  relates to "a cover for a tangentially related bias subject." The controversy receives only a mention in the Iseman article. There is no bias nor cover
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons (WP:BLP1E||WP:COATRACK)

Comment: Clear  application. The only notability for the subject is as part of the election campaign and that can be covered in other articles
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons (WP:BLP1E)

Comment: to John McCain lobbyist controversy. While she has been the subject of various coverage from reliable sources, she has only marginal notability in her own right; and since we already have another article on almost the same topic, I think we can probably afford to merge this article into that one without losing too much important information, especially considering the issues with Wikipedia's |biographies of living persons policy
Stance: merge
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons (WP:BLP)

Comment: The article is a coatrack because it is a bio of a person who never would have had a bio article except for her entanglement with a Presidential candidate. Someone trots out an old story from 2000 only when McCain is a frontrunner.  Despite my call for a merge, I note that we have articles on other women such as those alleged to have geen involved with or assaulted by Bill Clinton, including Dolly Kyle Browning , Sally Perdue , Gennifer Flowers , Juanita Broaddrick , Kathleen Willey , Paula Jones  , and Monica Lewinsky , those alleged to have been involved with other Democrats including  Donna Rice and Fanne Foxe. From the UK we have Christine Keeler . These women are only notable for their actual or suspected relationships with prominent politicians. If there is enough coverage in newspapers and broadcast media over a long enough period, or if the whiff of scandal proves the undoing of the politician, then apparently  doesn't apply. If it always applies absolutely to politicians' honeys who get in the limelight, then nominate the Browning, Perdue, Flowers, Broadderick, Willey, Jones, Lewinsky, Foxe and Rice  articles for AFD. We should not apply  or  in a way which appears to favor any one political party
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons (WP:BLP1E||WP:BLP1E||WP:COATRACK)

Comment: to John McCain lobbyist controversy.  #Articles about people notable only for one event vio. Article can be recreated if/when sufficient material in V RS sources is cited to write a neutral biography
Stance: merge
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons (WP:BLP1E||WP:BLP)

Comment: and cover reasonably sourced allegations there. This seems like the sort of thing that  and #NEWS were invented to cover. This person is notable only in the context of allegations relating to a Presidential candidate and campaign. Therefore, these allegations (where adequately sourced) should be covered in John McCain presidential campaign, 2008 - not in a standalone article on Vicki Iseman
Stance: merge
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons (WP:BLP1E||WP:NOT)

Comment: to John McCain lobbyist controversy which is clearly a more appropriate merge target than the general article on the main article on the campaign. There is too much refrenced material of too great a complexity for thw whole controversy to be adequately covered in the main article on the campaign. This article is a  and is contrary to 
Stance: merge
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Coatrack articles (WP:COATRACK||WP:BLP1E)

Comment: Starting with the nominator, numerous editors have referred to . Up until very recently (as far as I know) that link led to the  section now linked to through . My early edits here used the former link, which I've used many times in the past in AfDs, but until I learned in this discussion that the link had changed, I thought I was directing editors to , a policy. I assume some other editors made the same mistake and were also referring to the policy. I'm not sure how much that matters, but it might
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons (WP:BLP1E||WP:BLP||WP:ONEEVENT)

Comment: User:Therefore states repeatedly above that  /  are not absolutes that we can invoke without thinking about them. Good point. We'd be |wikilawyering if we just take the language to look for loopholes. Instead, Wikipedia policy tells us we need to look at both the spirit and the language of any policy and guideline and use our common sense. The spirit of  is crystal clear and there are numerous statements in it that apply directly to this case
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons (WP:BLP1E||WP:ONEEVENT||WP:LAWYER||WP:BLP)

Comment: as meeting . It is generally a very bad idea to delete things based on BLP penumbra concerns when we have no complaints from the subject. The notability concerned is much higher than that which BLP1E would normally trigger. Claims of COATRACK are also unpersuasive as explained by Sjakkalle above. I would not however be strongly opposed to a merger to John McCain lobbyist controversy
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:BIO)