Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marcus Bachmann

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Voyager640 (talk | contribs) at 05:41, 18 July 2011 (→‎Marcus Bachmann). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Marcus Bachmann

Marcus Bachmann (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I've never been accused of beating around the bush, so let me say that what we have here is crystal-clearly following in the footsteps of Campaign for "santorum" neologism; editors are creating WP:BLP articles on marginally-notable people that they don't like, so that said article will become a platform from which to criticize the subject. Not a single thing this man has done on his own meets our general notability guideline. He is the spouse of a current presidential candidate. He is the head of a religious clinic that attracted some press for offering conversion therapy. If the only things you can say about a person is that a) they have a famous spouse, and b) there are ideological outcries over a service that his organization offers, then that doesn't comes within a mile of the WP:GNG. Notability is WP:NOTINHERITED. BLPs cannot be allowed to serve as a coatrack for perceived anti-gay religious groups. Tarc (talk) 23:14, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:17, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:18, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:18, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:19, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:19, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:19, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I disagree with Tarc's analysis. COI: I wrote this stub. The article is heavily sourced to Marcus Bachmann-specific mainstream media stories, for which there are many, meeting WP:V. The lack of a Marcus article causes WP:WEIGHT issues on wp:Michele Bachmann, particularly in regards to his Christian counseling clinic, and his family's farm. Michele's long article has enough Michele-related controversy that lumping in Marcus-related issues is not optimal. Michele Bachmann's strong campaign has made him the focus of attention as a possible First Gentleman--only increasing--which is why in the spirit of Wikipedia:Wikipedia is comprehensive we have a strong interest to explain to our readers this subject neutrally, without speculation. On the article's first day of creation it had 2,000 views, showing this need exists; I imagine today's hits will be much higher. --David Shankbone 00:23, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per Tarc. Yes, Tarc, you may frame this. :-) Jclemens (talk) 00:30, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per David Shankbone. Articles on spouses of presidential candidates are pretty standard here. We've even got one on the wife of novelty candidate Dennis Kucinich, and Bachmann's gotten a lot more support and attention than he. Gamaliel (talk) 00:44, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - These may be useful links for those who wonder where this article is headed: Dan Savage July 12 2011 podcast, Dan Savage blog post entitled "Marcus Bachmann's Big Gay Problem", Slate article entitled "Dan Savage:Bully", and Slate article entitled "Read My Lisp". Delicious carbuncle (talk) 00:45, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
DC, I think it's good that you found more mainstream media sources that address the subject in his own right, but I think that it's important that we avoid WP:SPECULATION and stick to verifiable facts for a BLP. --David Shankbone 01:14, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. I'm glad we have this opportunity to work together again. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 03:02, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep: Flawed nomination. The subject has received mainstream media coverage, which means that he surpasses the Notability criteria. Spouses of major presidential candidates do normally get their own wikipedia articles in cases where they are extensively covered by the media: See Hadassah Lieberman, Kitty Dukakis, Todd Palin, Cindy McCain, etc. Victor Victoria (talk) 00:49, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Notablity might not be inherited, but Bachmann certainly has been the subject of significant coverage in reliable sourcesSt8fan (talk) 00:55, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The subject will continue to be in the public spotlight so long as his wife is running for US president. I'm inclined to think that there hasn't been sufficient coverage yet to make meet the notability standard, but I strongly suspect that there will be more coverage in the near future and that it would put the article over the threshold. We could delete it now and recreate it in a week or a month, but I don't see how anyone benefits from exercise. So I suggest keeping the article now and thinking about deletion again in a couple of months.   Will Beback  talk  01:00, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm inclined to think the other way. Why should we keep an article on someone without adequate source material? Kevin (talk) 01:04, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Yes there is some mainstream media coverage, but nothing where he is covered in his own right. Kevin (talk) 01:00, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep- His notability is demonstrably his own, not his wife's. Umbralcorax (talk) 01:10, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Subject is covered in plenty of reliable sources, and (contrary to what Tarc says) not in merely a WP:INHERITED fashion. Deleting the article means we run the risk of coatracking the Michele Bachmann article as more and more of these stories about Marcus hit the national and international news. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 01:15, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I think you've kinda jumped the gun here. This should have been discussed first before going straight to an AfD. There is pretty much only a single sentence in the article actually about the campaign. and the info in it not about the campaign can definitely be expanded with the sources out there. SilverserenC 01:18, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, bordering on strong. He's becoming the John Zaccaro of the 2012 campaign. There's a major piece on him and his business in today's New York Times, "Bachmann Husband's Counseling Center Raises Questions".[1] And that;s hardly the only coverage he's received, as a straightforward GNews search shows. There was a moderately lengthy profile in the Washington Post not two weeks ago.Michele Bachmann’s husband shares her strong conservative values. There's more than enough source material to write a solid article, and more than enough coverage to justify one -- in fact, it demands one. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 01:21, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Predictably, the Dan Savage standard-bearers are out in early force. We all know exactly what is going on here; this article was created by Shankbone for the same reasons that Cirt created the one on the faux santorum neologism. Not one of these insipid keeps has addressed a single issue of why this was nominated; there is nothing notable about "Marcus Bachmann" the man. What mentions there are in reliable sources are either in connection to his famous wife (WP:NOTINHERITED or to his clinic that (quite obviously and understandably) has earned enmity from the gay rights crowd. I'm quite aware that 2012 is shaping up to be one of the nastiest, most bitter years in American politics. But try...please, try...just once to not make the Wikipedia another front in your personal crusades. Tarc (talk) 01:27, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This is not how NOTINHERITED works. No one's making the argument that the subject is notable because his wife is notable. The subject is notable because he has received significant coverage in reliable sources. The coverage probably would not have come if his wife were not notable, but it is coverage all the same. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 01:38, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Tarc, I don't think it does your argument any favors to Wikipedia:Assume bad faith. There's no evidence anyone has any interest in using this article to attack the subject. As it is written, it is neutral, informative and reliably sourced, and I have no more to add to it. We are all committed to WP:ENC and it's a shame you disparage. --David Shankbone 01:50, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well said, David. Tarc has let his emotions get the better of him here. For the record, I disagree with Roscelese's statement that Marcus Bachmann has "received significant coverage" in RS. The majority of the source coverage is about his relationship with his wife and the controversy over his business practices. This has less to do with Marcus and more to do with his wife and business. Viriditas (talk) 03:41, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Roscelese can correct me if I'm wrong, but I think what she's trying to say is that: yes, Marcus is getting all this attention because he's married to Michelle, but the attention is now on him nonetheless. Victor Victoria (talk) 03:56, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Marcus_Bachmann&oldid=440067374"