Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Elizabeth Harper Kucinich

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. DES ^(talk) 16:53, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Elizabeth Harper Kucinich

In her own right, non-notable having done nothing special beyond marrying a politician, who may, but more likely may not, become President of the US. At best, worth a mention in his article but until she becomes first lady not worthy of her own. Emeraude 10:16, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep I think if this article is cleaned up and links to Myspace are removed from the notes it could be suitable. The Sunshine Man 11:24, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - Would keep if it can be established that her non-profit work is independently notable. Wl219 11:30, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Just as "notability is not inherited," one can't "marry into" notability, either. --Hnsampat 13:57, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The 2008 election cycle is now beginning, and she is a spousal participant and no less important than was Laura Bush in 2000 and 2004. If Dennis Kucinich is eliminated, then I agree that this article should go too.
Keep If verifiable information can be garnered from "multiple, non trivial sources" the the media has bestowed "notability". Notability should never be subjective. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 16:57, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable, especially with Times Online article. Ab e g92contribs 17:27, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep meets WP:N, in the US in this media age, potential first ladies tend to be newsworthy and get non-trivial media coverage. A major party candidate's wife seems here seems no different. Carlossuarez46 22:30, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Being married to a US presidential candidate is plenty notable, especially given the unusual nature of this couple. FC 15:56, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Dissenting comment - Bear in mind that there are currently 8 candidates running for the Democratic nomination and 10 running for the Republican nomination, not to mention a whole bunch of third-party candidates. If Elizabeth Kucinich is notable solely for being the wife of someone seeking his party's nomination for President, does that mean that Jackie Tancredo, Lynne Hunter, Margaret Gilmore, etc., are all notable enough to have their own articles? I don't think so. Now, if Elizabeth Kucinich has done enough to be notable in her own right, that's different. However, if the consensus here is that being the wife of a presidential candidate is enough to make one notable, then I must strongly disagree with the consensus. --Hnsampat 17:05, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Additional comment - Regarding the four sources given in this article, two are clearly unreliable sources (Elizabeth Kucinich's MySpace page and the page on her on Dennis Kucinich's official website). The other two both tend to be biased because of localism. (One is a Cincinnati newspaper describing how Cincinnati's congressman—Dennis Kucinich—met his current wife. The other is the Times, describing how a "local Essex girl" now has a remote chance of becoming the First Lady of the United States.) Certainly, both newspapers are generally considered reliable sources, but I'm not sure if they are detached from the subject enough to be considered "independent" for notability purposes. --Hnsampat 17:12, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Reply I think the "localism" argument is applying too high a bar for WP:RS. If you look at the reliable sources section of WP:BLP, nothing in that policy restricts the use of otherwise reliable sources for being too local. Nor does Wikipedia:Independent sources say anything about local sources being less independent than any other kind of source. Wl219 05:44, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Response - I know, and I don't mean to suggest that the newspapers here are not reliable sources per se. I'm just saying that the fact that Elizabeth Kucinich is mentioned there is not necessarily enough to make her notable for Wikipedia purposes. Local sources have a tendency to make local individuals or local events seem more notable than they actually are. In making this argument, I am saying that Elizabeth Kucinich being mentioned in these sources is NOT necessarily evidence of her notability. The primary argument, however, remains that being the wife of someone seeking his party's nomination is not sufficient to confer notability on her; she must be notable in her own right. --Hnsampat 07:17, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Further to my nomination, she has nothing notable in her own right. If being the wife of a possible (though odds against) presidential candidate is important, and that is the only thing out of the ordinary for her, she is worth a mention in his article. IF he gets elected, she will probably deserve an article. Until then, she has done nothing of notability except get married. Emeraude 19:52, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. and Hnsampat.--JayJasper 13:46, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Dennis Kucinich. John Vandenberg 08:54, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now. Its a weak keep at this instant in time. As the election cycle progresses, this page will either become more and more an obvious keep or an obvious delete. Right now, its too hard to say. In a year, it will be obvious. Why bother deleting now, it makes no sense. —Gaff ^ταλκ 21:17, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per nom: non-notable (just being married to someone who has a WP article is not sufficient grounds to assert notability), no special achievement to mention. Turgidson 21:30, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Mild Keep. Earlier proposal to merge with her husband's article failed. Should be treated like any other article on a minor current celebrity who we have verifiable information on. -- Infrogmation 00:56, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep please there are multiple nontrivial sources for this yuckfoo 01:24, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep She may be the next first lady of the US and does gets media attention. dr. yesterday 06:18, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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.