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

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
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 Too much passion on both sides for this one. Although notability may not be stellar, its there. User:Benjiboi summary was pretty convincing and not effectively countered. Mike Cline (talk) 19:39, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Elizabeth Kucinich

AfDs for this article:
Elizabeth Kucinich (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Delete and Merge 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. This could be easily merged into Dennis Kucinich. 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]
Thank you. Rin tin tin 1996 (talk) 22:47, 24 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.htmlLongevitydude (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]

  • 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. Neutral.Rankiri (talk) 01:11, 25 March 2010 (UTC) 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]

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]

  • Keep. True, notability is not inherited. She got it the old-fashioned way. With coverage of her. "Notability is not inherited" does not mean that if you related to someone notable, you are not yourself notable. It means you are not ipso facto notable. She has attacked much coverage in her own right, and is clearly notable.--Epeefleche (talk) 06:14, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge Obviously there is evidence of notability in the press so she is worth discussion in a BLP. However the only reason the press are interested is because she is someone's wife and being a "trophy wife" is not, of itself, notable. There would be a clearer argument if she were, say, a First Lady which of itself is notable. There is nothing in this article that would not be suitable for the BLP of the husband and a simple redirect to a personal life section can deal with anyone needing a link to her name. Ash (talk) 07:24, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the other keeps, especially benjiboi ukexpat (talk) 14:56, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep My reasons? Benjiboi presents (above) what seems to me a convincing case. Wingspeed (talk) 15:47, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - meets WP:BIO: "A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject." Invoking WP:NOTINHERITED which is an essay to trump that guideline, which is based on the WP:V policy seems backward to me. Just look at the article, these sources easily meet WP:RS. This is not even taking into account that this has gone through AfD twice before, and was kept both times. Enough is enough, stop bringing the same thing to AfD, and let's go along with the community's consensus. —Joshua Scott (LiberalFascist) talk 18:04, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Again: It's not a matter of "trumping," it's a matter of explaining. TJRC (talk) 19:16, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would also like to note that the dates for the previous AfDs were three years ago. The quality of the article has barely improved since then--possibly pointing out an underlying issue (which I note further down in these responses). Xe7al (talk) 06:49, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—what counts is whether readers can verify that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source ... not whether editors think it is true" (WP:V). WP:NOTINHERITED has nothing to say about that. —Joshua Scott (LiberalFascist) talk 22:07, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't argue with that, but nothing in this AFD is about verifiability or truth. It's about notability. So I'm not sure what you're trying to respond to with this. TJRC (talk) 22:23, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • What policy or guideline are you citing then, that would make this subject non-notable? It has the multiple sources required by WP:GNG. If you don't think the sources in the article are reliable, then please state why. —Joshua Scott (LiberalFascist) talk 01:06, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'll just point out that WP:NOTINHERITED is just a list of arguments not to make at AfD. I still don't see what you see in WP:GNG that excludes this article. If anything, it bolsters the keep arguments, meeting all of the requirements set forth. Which of the points is not being met by this article? —Joshua Scott (LiberalFascist) talk 01:32, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Quoting WP:GNG: "Presumed" means that significant coverage in reliable sources establishes a presumption, not a guarantee, that a subject is suitable for inclusion. Editors may reach a consensus that although a topic meets this criterion, it is not appropriate for a standalone article. For example, such an article may violate what Wikipedia is not.
Yes, any article can be deleted on consensus, in theory even a featured article, or the article on a president of the United States. That is the beauty of an informational !democracy. And as a reminder, this !vote is not a vote. That is another wonderful Wikioxymoron. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 15:59, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • You're forgetting the rest of the quote: For example, such an article may violate what Wikipedia is not. This is why I supported this quote with the following quotes. Wikipedia is not a news organization. I would suggest looking at that link. Xe7al (talk) 16:59, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Quoting WP:NRVE: The evidence must show the topic has gained significant independent coverage or recognition, and that this was not a mere "flash in the pan", nor a result of promotional activity or indiscriminate publicity, nor is the topic unsuitable for any other reason.
What date did this one event occur on? --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 15:59, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I believe the event would be found here at Dennis Kucinich presidential campaign, 2008 since most of the inheritably notable points on the article pertain in someway to that campaign. If you need dates, I would suggest looking at that article. Xe7al (talk) 16:59, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The problem with your theory is that news coverage in the sources used run from 2005 to 2010. That is not the description of a single event, like a kid in or, not in a balloon. Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 01:42, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Quoting WP:NOT#NEWS ("flash in the pan"): Who's who Even when an event is notable, individuals involved in it may not be. Unless news coverage of an individual goes beyond the context of a single event, our coverage of that individual should be limited to the article about that event, in proportion to their importance to the overall topic. (See Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons for more details.)
What date did this one event occur on? --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 15:59, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • See previous response to this question. Xe7al (talk) 16:59, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • This again links to the point that most of the items in the article are of trivial value other than those pertaining to Kucinich's campaign.
  • Quoting WP:BLP1E: If reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event, and if that person otherwise remains, or is likely to remain, a low-profile individual, we should generally avoid having an article on them.
What date did this one event occur on? --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 15:59, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Again, see previous response to this very same question. Xe7al (talk) 16:59, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Quoting WP:ONEVENT (which I would suggest reading in full): When the role played by an individual in the event is less significant, an independent article may not be needed, and a redirect is appropriate. For example, George Holliday, who videotaped the Rodney King beating, redirects to Rodney King. On the other hand, if an event is of sufficient importance, even relatively minor participants may require their own articles, for example Howard Brennan, a witness to the JFK assassination.
What date did this one event occur on? --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 15:59, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Again, see previous response to this very same question that was posted here four times. Xe7al (talk) 16:59, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Her role in Dennis Kucinich's campaign is disputable but his campaign was very short noting that his campaign is not "of sufficient importance" to require that Elizabeth needs her own article.
  • I am going to change my official stance to Delete and Merge because it can be clearly noted that there is enough inherited notability to include her in Denis Kucinich. But I still can't justify having a separate page, especially when it is made up of a lot of trivia level information. I believe that the page is partly in the state it is since the article has so little reason to be stand-alone. I truly believe the quality of information can be improved by conducting a merge. I should have been a little more clear about that from the beginning. Xe7al (talk) 06:49, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What exactly is trivia? Wikipedia doesn't define trivia. It is just information that any individual doesn't like, even though it is reported in reliable media. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 15:59, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wikipedia does infact define trivia. It can be found at WP:TRIV. ...and to quote WP:TRIV: This style guideline deals with the way in which these facts are represented in an article, not with whether the information contained within them is actually trivia, or whether trivia belongs in Wikipedia. Trivia sections should be avoided. If they must exist, they should in most cases be considered temporary, until a better method of presentation can be determined.
  • If you look at content policies for Biographies of Living Persons you can find WP:BLPSTYLE that I will also quote: Biographies of living persons should not have trivia sections. I may suggest bringing this to the attention of WP:BLP/N if you want to dispute if that article contains strings of trivia. Xe7al (talk) 16:59, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep if someone can get reliable sources and add content. If no one comes along in six months I will nominate it for deletion again. This category still should be looked at, which I will do. Rin tin tin 1996 (talk) 22:50, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

this better be the last afd no matter what the result is, 3 afds is 3 afds too many, this better be the last one no matter what. Longevitydude (talk) 22:54, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep -- The question is what the function of the "Director of Public Affairs" performs waht is clearly a notable organisation. Is it "press secretary", or something more substantial. What other derictorates are there? If she was merely a politician's wife, I would say "redirect" to him. If she was merely a minor official of the organisation, I would say "redirect" to it, but with two potential links, that does not work. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:19, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, two prior AfDs ended in keep, and nominator gives no reason to deviate from prior consensus or suggest consensus has varied, which it apparently has not.--Milowent (talk) 05:30, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I noted that an editor apparently unfamiliar with the workings of AfD posted this comment on the article's talkpage: "Don't delete out of spite. Until Google starts a wiki and archives everything Wikipedia is what we have, and articles should never be deleted - only more should be added. Don't say other wives don't have one - ADD ONE THEN - we need to preserve knowledge for the future. She's the (intelligent) wife of a presidential candidate. Of course she should have a page. --IceHunter (talk) 22:30, 25 March 2010 (UTC)" --Milowent (talk) 15:41, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

While IceHunter's opinion is not couched in policy, I think they are trying to articulate a valid point of view, i.e., that the wives of significant presidential candidates are likely to be notable enough to support an article. Longevitydude (talk) 23:30, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, notable public figure with extensive media coverage. Nominator's assertions are unfounded. Robert K S (talk) 16:39, 29 March 2010 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Elizabeth_Kucinich_(3rd_nomination)&oldid=1137824173"