Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Elizabeth Kucinich (3rd nomination)

Elizabeth Kucinich

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

Delete Notability is virtually zero (in accordance with WP:NN). She does not have any major significance other than being a Congressman's wife. Kucinich did not make it far in the primaries so his wife is even more insignificant. The article borderlines on trivia. Xe7al (talk) 19:07, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I am more notable than this woman and I don't have an article Clearly non-notable. Pemberton08 (talk) 19:24, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep- Meets the GNG, and has enough separate notability to justify an article separate from her husband. Umbralcorax (talk) 19:33, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Umbralcorax: Can you explain the basis for your position that she meets WP:GNG? Can you point to any "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject," other than such coverage based on her WP:INHERITed notability as the spouse of Dennis Kucinich, which is not qualifying coverage? TJRC (talk) 19:52, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOTINHERITED doesn't trump the General Notability Guideline, if she has 10 reliable facts from 5 reliable sources, that is enough for a standalone article. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 07:24, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a matter of "trumping," it's a matter of explaining. WP:NOTINHERITED says it best: "Family members of celebrities also must meet Wikipedia's notability criteria on their own merits – the fact that they have famous relatives is not, in and of itself, sufficient to justify an independent article. Ordinarily, a relative of a celebrity should only have their own independent article if and when it can be reliably sourced that they have done something significant and notable in their own right, and would thereby merit an independent article even if they didn't have a famous relative." Elizabeth has not done anything significant in her own right. She has not done anything notable in her own right. She would not merit an independent article if she did not have a famous relative. TJRC (talk) 17:56, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Does not meet WP:GNG. No significant coverage independent of her husband. Her purported notability is entirely derived from the combination of her being married to a U.S. congressman and former candidate for U.S. President, coupled with the perception that she is attractive. Notability is not inherited, WP:NOTINHERITED, and her status as such a spouse, even coupled with her physical appearance, does not rise to Wikipedia notability standards. Arguments put forth on the talk page seem to center around coverage of her based on her spousal status; and coverage in local news in her hometown; and (perhaps, this is a bit unclear) an argument that a spouse of a congressional member or [former] presidential candidate is inherently notable. I don't think these are supportable arguments. TJRC (talk) 19:49, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- Frankly, I'm thinking that we should go through every single one of these to check for notability. Notability is not inherited. Rin tin tin 1996 (talk) 20:21, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I can't get this link to work. It's a category. Rin tin tin 1996 (talk) 20:23, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Spouses of members of the United States House of Representatives. — Rankiri (talk) 20:26, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- Cybercobra (talk) 20:36, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. -- Cybercobra (talk) 20:36, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- Cybercobra (talk) 20:36, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There is little doubt that she would not be notable were it not for her husband. But that does not mean her notability is entirely inherited. A number of prominent news outlets have devoted coverage to her: [1] and [2] for example. Regardless of the merits of that coverage, she is independently notable as meeting WP:BIO --Mkativerata (talk) 20:42, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The first is about her role in her Dennis Kucinich's campaign and her marriage to him. It contains 20 paragraphs, 15 of which are about her relationship with Dennis. The second has more on Elizabeth (30 paragraphs; 19 on her relationship with Dennis, 11 other), but even that shows how derivative of Dennis's notability this is. And this is in her hometown paper. TJRC (talk) 20:59, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - I fully understand your argument; it is a difficult call to make whether the Elizabeth Kucinich's of this work get enough coverage in their own right to qualify for an article. I happen to think the bar is crossed here (it is hard to call a national UK newspaper a "hometown newspaper") but reasonable minds may differ. No great loss if consensus goes against my "keep" here. --Mkativerata (talk) 22:35, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep She has been written about in several news magazines and has had segments on CBS, Fox, and NBC at least (doing a quick google inquiry). Yes, her notability stems from her husband, but now she is clearly notable since she was a potential future First Lady. Longevitydude (talk) 22:29, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

please there are multiple nontrivial sources for this. Longevitydude (talk) 22:30, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

She is notable for the fact that she is one of the most beautiful women in the world. She is part of a very important marriage to Dennis Kucinich who is running for President. She has appeared on the Stephen Colbert show. There is no good reason to delete her. Please do not delete her. Longevitydude (talk) 22:31, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If verifiable information can be garnered from "multiple, non trivial sources" the the media has bestowed "notability". Notability should never be subjective. Longevitydude (talk) 22:31, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just for the record, keeping a page up because of "the fact that she is one of the most beautiful women in the world" and "she is part of a very important marriage." is quite subjective--one thing you just noted notability should never come from. By what I have seen, she had little impact during the campaign other than tabloid level articles about her relationship to Kucinich and her appearance. Xe7al (talk) 22:57, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Currently, she is director of public affairs for the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine.[6] http://voices.washingtonpost.com/reliable-source/2009/10/rs-kucinich29.html Longevitydude (talk) 22:58, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Does the previous director of public affairs have a Wikipedia article? TJRC (talk) 06:16, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't been able to find any information about who has been their public affairs director in the past. I searched both through Wikipedia and PCRM's website. PCRM did not appear to publicize who their public relations director was before Kucinich. Of course, if anyone can find it, please share. Xe7al (talk) 16:51, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Washington Post source is actually a blog entry: [3]. — Rankiri (talk) 13:40, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

she has had a lot of media attention, didnt you see she has a lot of sources? Longevitydude (talk) 22:59, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. She's a notable figure who is frequently in the news. For example, she appears prominently in these stories at The Plain Dealer and Cleveland Magazine from last week. - Eureka Lott 23:25, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Plain Dealer article is coverage of Denis Kucinich's press statement that he did not support the health care reform bill in exchange for getting Elizabeth a job. The Cleveland Magazine article is about Kucinich's vote switch on the bill, with a passing mention of his wife. TJRC (talk) 23:37, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed that too when I did a search through google news. Out of the few articles that actually had anything to do with her remotely, they were just passing mentions or minor news groups. Xe7al (talk) 00:46, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. She has no notability aside from her husband. Everything that mentions her is because of her connection to him. Just supposition on my part, but I bet if she divorced him tomorrow, nobody would hear about her until she married the next famous guy. Niteshift36 (talk) 01:31, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Subject received significant media coverage, far out of proportion of other congressional spouses. Gamaliel (talk) 01:34, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The three most notable things about her is that she is the spouse of Denis Kucinich, has a stud ring in her tongue and is a vegan. If minor triva is needed to fill her article then she really has done nothing of note. Arzel (talk) 03:04, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and merge any notable content to Dennis Kucinich. This woman has had significant TRIVIAL coverage. A news search confirms this. Sources currently used are essentially trivial coverage. Moogwrench (talk) 05:49, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would definitely suggest merging any useful information from this article to Dennis Kucinich. A merge would not be difficult in this situation and would probably improve the quality of information. Xe7al (talk) 16:51, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Subject received coverage from reliable sources, the definition of Wikipedia Notability. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 06:58, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as failing our current notability standards (I have changed my mind since we were last here). Thanks, SqueakBox talk contribs 13:18, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. I'm afraid we'll never reach a clear consensus on this one. The person has received some coverage in reliable secondary sources, but her individual notability is questionable to say the least. — Rankiri (talk) 14:31, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WHY AM I NOT COUNTED IN THE AFD STATICTICS? I VOTED, JUST LIKE EVERYONE ELSE, I DESERVE TO BE COUNTED!!!!!!!!! AND THREE AFDS IS RIDICULOUS, THIS BETTER BE THE LAST ONE NO MATTER WHAT THE RESULT IS!!!!!!!!!!! Longevitydude (talk) 14:40, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

These statistics are useless. No closing admin should ever rely on them since this is not a majority vote. — Rankiri (talk) 14:43, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia's policy regarding deletions: "Remember that the debate is not a vote, so recommendations on the course of action to be taken should always be sustained by arguments." Xe7al (talk) 16:51, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

well she has had lots of coverage, plus she married to a very notable politician. Longevitydude (talk) 14:44, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep She clearly meets GNG even if much/most of her coverage in books and news sources is tied to her more notable husband. This is, in part how US politics work, the spouse of the elected official at upper levels such as her husband is considered a benefit and liability so as a general rule plays it safe and doesn't make news eclipsing their elected official spouse. This, in part is why we don't fold Michelle Obama into her husband's article. Many spouses will never be more than a footnote in the elected official's biography but this is not one of them. She is interviewed as her own being for her own opinions, she is noted as a celebrity in various circles, etc.

I could go on but you get the point. Even if many/most are tied to her husband's work they still focus on her as well. Check each major paper and you'll likely find much more. Likely you can contact her to get more like these and more leads from her facebook and myspace pages. There is more than enough for a good article here. it will actually take time to dig through all that available. -- Banjeboi 05:36, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]