Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Elizabeth 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.

Elizabeth Kucinich

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected csp |username}}.

Elizabeth Kucinich (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

Delete Subject is not independently notable per

• Keep. Elizabeth Kucinich has been the subject of public interest and of some news coverage. There are sufficient secondary sources to warrant an article about her per
  WP:BIO. --Metropolitan90 07:51, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep Worth keeping for now. If her husband fails in his presidential bid then the page perhaps should be merged with his or deleted, but for now there is more than enough reason to keep it.Alberon 09:13, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I'm not trying to provoke anyone, but this nomination seems a little silly. There's plenty of reputable coverage specifically about Ms Kucinich, and we can't simply exclude someone because her/his spouse is more notable. The article could provide more extensive sourcing, but of course I'm too lazy to do it myself. Gerta 13:45, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Hansonc 17:00, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Keep. Nomination is frivolous. Elizabeth Kucinich is more notable than 75%-plus of Wikipedia's article subjects. An accomplished woman of social justice, who is married to a major-party presidential candidate, with hundreds of mainstream media news articles about her -- why is this up for deletion? ---Elpepe ^talk! 20:43, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Again with the frivolous nominations. It is clearly notable, even when you exclude her husband from the argument. scope_creep 21:12, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Ultra Keep If we go around deleting every Wikipedia entry of marginal importance, fully 60% of the band pages would be gone overnight. If I can get information about an obscure 1940's Bollywood actress, why not the wife of a current presidential candidate? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.74.209.188 (talk) 02:05, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Ultra Keep Why is this up for deletion? Has interesting facts probably not widely known anywhere else about someone very much in the news. Why this would even be considered for deletion I can't understand. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.128.192.3 (talk) 13:44, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. 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. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MosquitoNumber1 (talk •contribs) 16:14, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Is is just me or is Wiki seemingly more and more like and old boys club? I feel like information is being deleted for personal reasons. This is just another example. I find it difficult to imagine anyone or group of people are unbiased enough to have this power. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.99.8.162 (talk • contribs)
• Keep. At least as notable as Michelle Obama and in the news more frequently of late.--Rosicrucian^Talk 13:34, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The argument that there is a lot of other stuff that should be deleted if this one is deleted is valid. GerardM 14:23, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Haha you guys are funny, either you wiki editors are gay, or jealous ugly females, crazy communist censors. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.109.168.231 (talk) 14:35, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• You know, I'd really like us to keep this article but the parade of anonymous IP meatpuppets is just embarrassing.--Rosicrucian^Talk 15:00, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Yeah, I've only seen one valid argument here per the policies which is Rosicrucian's. There aren't many independent sources used in the article and nothing that asserts notability beyond the fact that she's DK's wife. I'd say that she's not nearly as notable as Obama's however. Still, that argument doesn't hold weight per
  WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. --Strothra 19:32, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Personally I take that more as a sign that the article needs cleanup/improvement in its sourcing than outright deletion. I'm aware of
  WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, but I did at least try to compare apples to apples and candidates' wives to candidates' wives.--Rosicrucian^Talk 20:37, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Even with the addition of more sources, her notability in those sources is still based on the fact that she's DK's wife, not because of anything that she does. She isn't independently notable. --Strothra 20:40, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete for lack of independent notability. She has failed to inherit her husband's notability, unless we decide to include all Congressional wives. Biruitorul 00:11, 4 November 2007 (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 as a potential future First Lady.--Appraiser 15:38, 4 November 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.