Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Whitney Gravel

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 Delete. --VS ^talk 10:48, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Whitney Gravel

As far as I can see, there is no notability for Mrs. Gravel presented in the article. Just being the wife of a candidate does not make her notable. Metros (talk) 22:50, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So you're saying that Elizabeth Kucinich is more notable than Mike Gravel's wife, whom both of the wives spouse's both come in at 0-1%? I'm sure that there will be more notable information added as Gravel's campaign continues. CoolKid1993 (talk) 22:57, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- How many votes their husbands get have nothing to do with the notability of these women. Metros (talk) 23:18, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, not exactly. If someone becomes a major party nominee, their spouse always gets an article, e.g. Eleanor McGovern, Kitty Dukakis. So notability is sort of a combined function both of the person's own accomplisments and the political spouse's. Wasted Time R (talk) 23:30, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - True, but Gravel isn’t going to be the Democratic nominee in any conceivable situation. —Travis ^talk 00:48, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes, because as the candidate gets more coverage, so too does their spouse through the human interest that crops up. But just being the spouse doesn't equal the notability, the coverage is what does. Metros (talk) 02:56, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Well it's not like Barbara Richardson, Bill Richardson's wife, is any more famous than Whitney is. All of her fame comes back to being known as Bill Richardson's wife as well, and the same goes for all of the presidential candidate's wives, some are just more known in the media, i.e. Michelle Obama and Elizabeth Edwards, but it should be beneficial to have a stub-class article for each of the presidential candidate's wives despite there husband or wive's viabilty to become there party's nomination. CoolKid1993 (talk) 05:14, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete the article as it stands has one minor media mention of Mrs. Gravel, so does not meet the criteria of multiple sources required by WP:BIO. I don't believe that being the wife of a presidential candidate by itself confers notability. For better or worse Mrs. Kucinich has received major media coverage which Mrs. gravel appears not to have done. If proper sources showing media coverage of Mrs. Gravel can be found (particularly for any references to her that are not focused solely on her role as Senator Gravel's wife) I'd be prepared to change my view on this. Gwernol 23:25, 10 January 2008 (UTC)`[reply]
Delete. Mike Gravel is not a serious candidate, so the analogy to the other wives is faulty. Nothing in the article shows any real independent notability. Clarityfiend (talk) 02:41, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, While I think some of the candidate's wives have gained some notability as a result of their husband's presidential campaigns, Whitney Gravel is an exception to this, due in part to the lack of media coverage about her, or her husband's campaign. --TommyBoy (talk) 01:37, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep While some may argue that Whitney isn't notable because her husband has, "no chance" of winning the Democratic nomination, it's the duty of the encyclopedia to be consistent in application. If all other candidate wives get pages, then so too should Whitney. '''Shawn''' (talk) 06:39, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- No one is arguing that the article should be deleted because of Mike Gravel's chances of winning the nomination. The argument is she doesn't meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines because she has not been the subject of multiple independent published articles. It is not the duty of the encyclopedia to apply the particular consistency formula you are proposing, we stick to established policies and guidelines (see notability and verifiability. Gwernol 11:56, 16 January 2008 (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.