Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Haley (South Carolina)

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. (non-admin closure) sst✈ 23:43, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Haley (South Carolina)

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

No apparent notability of his own, purely by association with his politician wife. Kevin McE (talk) 13:32, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As creator, I freely admit that this is a tricky sort of articles re: notability. (note that spouses of governors of American states is a Category) But spouses of prominent politicians do become notable for that alone, see: Todd Palin. They get written up in the press during campaigns and during their spouse's term in office, and people want to know about them during the campaign. Michael Haley's Wikipedia page got ~19,000 hits in the 5 days leading up to the S. Carolina primaries, presumably because he is married ot a woman being discusses as a possible Vice-Presidential nominee. In the course of the current campaign season, I created: Mary Pat Christie, Karen Waldbillig Kasich, Jane O'Meara Sanders, and Jeanette Rubio. The recent AFD discussions at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Candy Carson and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jeanette Dousdebes Rubio may be useful to this discussion.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:30, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I see both sides of this argument, but I think the fact that the page got 19K hits in 5 days speaks volumes about the usefulness of the page, and indeed about Mr. Haley's apparent notability. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 161.113.11.16 (talk) 17:36, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:13, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:13, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Carolina-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:13, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Creator is referencing the fact that other articles they have created have been kept at deletion discussions. That is not a valid reason to keep this article unfortunately. WP:INHERIT. Only partners and spouses of politicians with significant notability on their own should have individual articles. AusLondonder (talk) 22:53, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No. I am "referencing" the fact that First Ladies and Gentlemen of American States with no claim to notability beyond the kind of coverage that results from the election of a spouse as governor do have articles. See: Neva Egan, Nellie Connally, Mary Rockefeller, we have dozens, probably scores of first spouse bios on people with no more notability independent of the Gubernatorial spouse than Columba Bush or Carole Crist. This is so because WP:INHERIT makes an explicit exception for First Lady that apears to have been effectively extended to a great many Gubernatorial First Spouses.

Note, however, that like other First Spouse articles, Michael Haley is verifiably and reliably sourced. This is possible because First spouse status comes with press attention. The press attention is real, and sustained press attention to an individual's career confers notability.

Note also, however, those 19K hits on his page. Nikki Haley is in the national spotlight and people turn to Wikipedia to find out who the spouse is.

More than 8,000 page views yesterday, 27K in the last 10 days.E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:51, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As I said when I created the page on Karen Kasich (see:Talk:Karen Waldbillig Kasich,) "If at some point, Kasich folds his tent and heads back to Columbus, we can consider whether to redirect this article to the Governor's page."

I leave it to others to decide whether to keep this or merge and redirect to Nikki Haley.E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:23, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not seeing any notability. For his wife, not for him. Could be merged to her article but not worth a standalone. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:15, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note that There is, in fact, a great deal more coverage of Haley in his roles as a military officer and as "First Gentleman" than I had realized. Have added some of it to the page. It is generated by the fact that he is married to a national political figure, but, once coverage exists, it does not matter for WP:GNG purposes what caused it to exist.

-sourcing for the details of his life: childhood, parents, career is taken entirely from reliable news media coverage, which is in-depth, not confined to South Carolina, and began during his wife's 2010 gubernatorial campaign.

- Note also the two very minor firsts mentioned in multiple press accounts: first gubernatorial spouse on active military duty, and first First Gentleman of South Carolina.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:12, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

just fyi Prompted by this AFD, I have started a thread on the talk page of WP:INHERIT.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:37, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article passes GNG and needs to pass nothing else. However, Haley also has a few "firsts" and that lends to his notability as well. Btw, I did comment on the talk page of WP:INHERIT and then came over here to look at the article. This isn't the first time I've seen a spouse up for AfD and the ones that are kept are like this one: they pass GNG. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 17:55, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I'm going to deal with this article, and this article alone in this response (I'll address the overall concept in E.M.Gregory's thread on the Inherit talk page. This article clearly meets the level of coverage necessary to meet WP:GNG. If the coverage were simply from local SC sources, I would be more hesitant, but the current references include national attention. The rare status of his military service I think makes him a more attractive subject for reporters. He has even received attention in international news sources such as the India Times, as well as other national coverage, such as CS Monitor, New York Daily News, and the Huffington Post. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 18:54, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per WP:GNG. and per the fact that user above promises to improve the article further. Just because you are a spouse of a politician doesnt make you not notable.BabbaQ (talk) 22:46, 26 February 2016 (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.