Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Amanda Marcotte (3rd nomination)

Amanda Marcotte

AfDs for this article:

• Articles for deletion/Amanda Marcotte
• Articles for deletion/Amanda Marcotte (3rd nomination)
• Articles for deletion/Amanda Marcotte (second nomination)

Amanda Marcotte (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

This AfD is very similar to the Melissa McEwan, with minor differences. It's another stub article about a short-lived staffer/blogger hired by John Edwards. She was forced to resign and dropped from view. This article twice went through AfD at the time of the event but in the fullness of time, it's very clear that it's turned out to be another one-hit-wonder, with no sustained notability whatsoever. The article basically exists to detail her fall from grace and resignation and there's little else there apart from further sniping about her blog and later book (redacted from the article earlier today). The fact that she's been published confers a little more notability than her colleague, Ms. McEwan, but not enough to sustain notability per WP:BLP. To summarise; NN-BIO, BLP1E, WP:UNDUE, WP:COAT, semi-stub article, needs to be nuked from orbit (just to be sure) - Alison ^❤ 05:33, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —Alison ^❤ 05:39, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

• Delete - per nom - Alison ^❤ 05:33, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
• Keep - Marcotte is one of the most important liberal feminist bloggers, and as such is notable enough to warrant an article. Krakatoa (talk) 07:09, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Well, it's a pity the article doesn't reflect that and instead, focuses almost entirely on her 'sins'. It's just a hatchet job as it is right now - Alison ^❤ 07:37, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
• um yeah - not so great.... Delete - per nom Privatemusings (talk) 09:46, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete - as the nominator indicates - in the fullness of time this article has risen no higher than to show is that the subject is only known in the context of one event; and throughout that time she has remained of very low profile. In such a case there is no alternative than to discard the article under our guidelines.--VirtualSteve ^{need admin support?} 11:32, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
• Keep (I've got my account back!): There is substantially more substance than in the Melissa McEwan case. If the bio has UNDUE troubles, this is the kind of cleanup that can be done without deleting -all in all I'd say that the image the article gives of her is positive. BLP1E here does not apply, since there is also the book stuff. Even if the book and the blogging controversy, taken in isolation, would be not enough, them being together make the case for notability and bio, IMHO. --Cycl^opia - ^talk 13:10, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
• Keep. Published author, notable blogger. Gamaliel (talk) 22:37, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
• Comment. Marcotte has also been published in The Guardian [1] and the Los Angeles Times [2] and also blogs at and does podcasts for RH [Reproductive Health] Reality Check. Krakatoa (talk) 23:14, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
• Keep: notability seems only to have strengthened since the prior two AfDs which also were keeps.--Milowent (talk) 00:52, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
• Keep: the article should be strengthened, but as Krakatoa points out, Marcotte's blogs, podcasts and other publications give her notability well beyond the incident in the Edwards campaign. More should be added to the article, but deletion is not called for here. Tvoz/talk 01:05, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
• Keep - Article isn't ideal, but is definitely notable enough, given the above evidence. I think, Lord Spongefrog, (I am the Czar of all Russias!) 11:31, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete: Beyond the Edwards controversy and the [redacted] claims put forth by Marcotte during the the Duke Hoax, there is very little to connect Marcotte to notability. The well-known aspects of her are constantly removed and it makes more sense to be put in those appropriate articles, while the page without them seems to exist otherwise purley to cater to her angstrom-sized group of national followers. It is hardly worth it. Cheerio. HoundofBaskersville (talk) 14:07, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. --John (talk) 06:24, 24 October 2009 (UTC)