Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Amanda Marcotte (second nomination)


 * 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. Although this person seems to be notable for only a single incident, that incident spawned a pretty large amount of coverage, and the majority here felt that the prominence of the event and the level of coverage was good enough for notability. There may be other issues to consider that were not the main focus of this debate, including POV issues and BLP concerns, but those didn't have strong traction on the debate. Mango juice talk 15:47, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Amanda Marcotte

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Previously kept by Articles for deletion/Amanda Marcotte. Here's my problem with this article: there are several citations in References, but all of them are either to the subject's own site, or to the Catholic League, which hates her opinions on some things. There does not seem to be any independent discussion, and while this article sets out to be a biography, pretty much 100% of the independently verifiable information is about one incident of distinctly questionable significance; it might merit a short sentence in an article on the Edwards campaign, but even that would rapidly become old news and not worth recording. If there are independent non-trivial sources primarily about Marcotte the person, fine, let's cite them and write an article about Marcotte the person, but this is actually an article on a campaign by a Catholic group to get someone fired for having opinions with which they disagree. Guy (Help!) 13:01, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Weak delete. A person can obtain notability from one significant event, but in this case we can't say if it's significant based on the present sources. DGG 01:29, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Weak keep.' I partly agree that this is more an instance of how Bill Donahue/the Catholic League campaign against political ideas they don't like, and as such belongs on Donahue's page or the Catholic League's page. But, if it were on those wikipages, it would certainly be censored and distorted, as the Donahue/CL supporters who read those pages would not be happy with a neutral account of how their organization attacked Amanda Marcotte, but would prefer an account that pretended Marcotte was in the wrong and their organization was merely defending Catholics from her supposed bigotry. A neutral account - which I think the current page now is - is only possible on a separate wikipage. The incident was certainly a notable one in Amanda Marcotte's life - she lost a job she wanted over it. Suggest that the page is left as-is, tagged for expansion, for at least six months: if no one is interested in expanding on Amanda Marcotte's biography in that time, tag it for deletion again. Yonmei 10:24, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
 * But, if it were on those wikipages, it would certainly be censored and distorted... Not relevant. If that's the case, there are avenues for stopping POV-pushing, but in any case you seem to be arguing that this is, in effect, a content fork. --Calton | Talk 01:04, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Not relevant. Perfectly relevant. If the information is useful, it will need to be on a separate page to the Catholic League wikipage to be retained on Wikipedia. If it is not useful, delete it now rather than fudging the issue by moving it to the Catholic League wikipage to be censored out of existence. 82.41.225.44 15:23, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I repeat, there are avenues for stopping POV-pushing. The pre-emptive charges of censorship aren't very convincing. --Calton | Talk 22:57, 2 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep as per Yonmei. While the person may not be notable enough, the conflict described in this article is. It's relevant information, don't throw it away. Stammer 17:03, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete or Redirect. It's not a biography by any stretch, but an article about a political controversy -- and to go by User:Yonmei's argument, designed as a content fork, to boot. --Calton | Talk 01:04, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. The nomination is wholly without merit.  Marcotte is notable and what made her notable is the dispute following her employment by the Edwards campaign.  The nominator writes: "If there are independent non-trivial sources primarily about Marcotte the person, fine, let's cite them and write an article about Marcotte the person, but this is actually an article on a campaign by a Catholic group to get someone fired for having opinions with which they disagree."  If there are independant sources?  Please, this story was all over the media.  It's just a matter of someone doing the leg work.  This is a curable defect, not a basis for deletion.  The fact that almost the entire article is about the dispute is not a basis for deletion.  That is what made her notable and it is almost the only part of her life that is notable and thus belongs in the article.  The assertion that it is just an article about the Catholic League trying to get someone fired because of opinions they disagree with, although not true (myriads of people disagree with the Church all the time but do so without spewing hateful venom and the Catholic League never says a word), is irrelevant to the issue of deletion.  Even if it were the case, that's not a basis for deletion as Marcotte and the dispute would still be notable.  Whether or not she's actually anti-Catholic (I don't think fair-minded people could really disagree about it, though) is beside the point.  She was hired on a presidential campaign and had to quit after a huge media uproar caused by a Catholic civil rights group accusing her of bigotry.  Even if the Catholic League's detractors were right (and they're not) the article still wouldn't be properly deleted.  The article does not "set out to be a biography" in the sense that its supposed to document her full life.  What's in the article is the only part of her life that's notable.  Look at the article on Jessica Hahn; almost the entire article is on the Jim Baker scandal...because that's what made her notable.  The case is the same here.  Mamalujo 23:48, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Jessica Hahn's involvement in the Jim Bakker scandal was, shall we say, covered by the media rather longer than the day or so of Marcotte's kerfluffle.--Calton | Talk 22:57, 2 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep Im sure Marcotte will provide us with all kinds of future bufoonery to add to her bio. I can also gaurantee that at some point, somebody will be writing a history of blogs and politics, and this article will be useful —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 192.251.73.123 (talk) 20:12, 2 May 2007 (UTC).
 * Wikipedia is not a crystal ball: that someone might someday do something important doesn't rate them a biographical article. --Calton | Talk 22:57, 2 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Strong delete Non-notable individual. Make article a redirect to the edwards 2008 campaign article, mention this squabble in said article. Hipocrite - &laquo; Talk &raquo; 20:37, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong delete -- We're talking about Hipocrite here, right? Oh Amanda?  Well keep then as per 192.251.73.123 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.39.78.68 (talk) 07:15, 3 May 2007 (UTC).
 * Comment For those who are maintaining that this subject is not notable, I'd suggest they reread (or, more likely, read for the first time) WP:Notability. There is no question that this subject is notable: "Generally, a topic is notable if it has been the subject of coverage that is independent of the subject, reliable, and attributable. The depth of coverage and the quality of sources must be considered in determining the number of sources required and whether the coverage establishes notability." —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mamalujo (talk • contribs) 17:03, 3 May 2007 (UTC).
 * Reply "The depth of coverage ... must be considered." There is no depth of coverage here. Hipocrite - &laquo; Talk &raquo; 17:04, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid that dog won't hunt either. Coverage of this subject has been wide, deep and sustained.  It did not just appear in the news sections of daily papers on the days of the complaints and the "resignation", but there were also feature articles, extensive comment and editorial, and coverage in weekly and monthly periodicals.  The controversy will no doubt be making its way into academic journals and will without question find its way into books like Philip Jenkins' work on Anti-Catholicism.Mamalujo 17:43, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Is there coverage of this blogger that does not relate to her tenure as a John Edwards staffer and the catholic league? Depth is not a count of article about the subject, it's an evaluation of if it's the subject that's notable or the event. I don't believe this subject is notable outside of the John Edwards 2008 campaign. Do you? Hipocrite - &laquo; Talk &raquo; 17:46, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid you misapprehend the meaning of the phrase "depth of coverage". Granted it is not a mere article count, but neither is it an inquiry into whether the subject is notable for multiple reasons (if that were the case there would be myriad articles about individuals who are notable for a single incident that would have to be deleted, i.e., Timothy McVeigh, Jessica Lynch, Mark David Chapman).  "Depth of coverage" goes to whether there is simply a news blurb vs. "in depth coverage", or mere news stories vs. features, coverage in weeklies, etc. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mamalujo (talk • contribs) 18:12, 3 May 2007 (UTC).
 * No, it's about the depth the articles go in to. For instance, you can't even tell me the subjects birthyear based on the coverage. You can't tell me where she was born, the names of her parents, brothers and sisters, or any of the basic biographical datum. That's a lack of coverage depth. This is different than McVeigh, where we know all of that. Hipocrite - &laquo; Talk &raquo; 18:14, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. The subject meets WP:BIO, and there needs to be some expansion as opposed to outright deletion. --badlydrawnjeff talk 17:23, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
 * What a pity there don't appear to be any sources primarily about her that we can use for expansion, then. Guy (Help!) 20:22, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Her notability is established, there's plenty of other information to fill in the gaps from other areas. --badlydrawnjeff talk 20:29, 3 May 2007 (UTC)


 * A blogger said something offensive? William Donahue is shooting his mouth off about it? I'm shocked! Merge whatever useful content there is (not much) into the Edwards campaign article and be done with it. ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 20:58, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep, but consider moving to Pandagon (the title of her blog) since that's the source of most of the notability here. The Marcotte/Edwards flap made national news for nearly a week, and is clearly notable. *** Crotalus ***  10:40, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Here, for instance, are a couple of write-ups in The New York Times: . And in The Washington Post:  . This was clearly an event of considerable public significance. We have bio articles on people a lot less notable than this.  *** Crotalus ***  10:46, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree with *** Crotalus ***  - changing the page name to Pandagon makes sense. Yonmei 18:09, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep as the subject arguably meets WP:BIO and the abundance of references pass all other relevant inclusionary policies. RFerreira 05:49, 6 May 2007 (UTC)


 * 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.