Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anita Thigpen Perry (2nd 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. King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 23:15, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Anita Thigpen Perry
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

No independent notability; spouse of a sitting US governor. Fails first point of Notability (people).  Horologium  (talk) 19:17, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Userfy I'll take this article under my wing and attempt to bring it up to a minimum level of quality as the article did previously have notibility qualifiers (medical institution, research, etc.) but were unsourced and got removed from the article. Hasteur (talk) 19:45, 11 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep - First ladies are ceremonial public figures. Yes, they gain their position via marriage, only indirectly through election, but the fact remains that they are constantly in the public eye and almost certainly the object of independent media coverage if you look hard enough. They perform public functions, in many or most cases, and they are likely to be the object of WP searches by the general public, adding a rationale of functionality for their inclusion. So, keep as notable per se. Carrite (talk) 21:16, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This one-line stub is getting an average of around 50 hits a day this month, independent of the added AfD traffic. This indicates to me that the general public assumes that bios of sitting first ladies and gentlemen will be found on WP. Carrite (talk) 21:20, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
 * And they're not finding anything here. There are four gubernatorial spouses who are redirects: Patsy Riley, Mariclare Culver, Supriya Jindal, and Nancy Schweitzer. There are 23 that are redlinked (plus three in the territories). This should be join one of the two groups. If Mrs. Perry is notable, there should be some coverage of her; this article is unreferenced and content-free. The fact that this article was kept at the first AFD for the potential to be sourced, and seven months later is still an unsourced sub-stub leads me to believe that the first AFD was incorrect. There is almost nothing available that doesn't discuss her in the context of her relationship to her husband, which is not sufficient to establish notability. She is not Maria Shriver, an internationally recognized journalist, Marjorie Rendell, a federal judge, or Lori Easley, a Miss USA state representative; she's not even Michelle Paige Paterson, who might qualify for notability due to the affairs to which she admitted when her husband became governor.  Horologium  (talk) 22:53, 11 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:20, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:20, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Rick Perry. The article survived deletion in January with statements like "This we can rescue", but-- I am not at all surprised-- it's still the same page that says in its entirety "Anita Thigpen Perry is the current First Lady of Texas, and the wife of Governor Rick Perry".  This was created about five years ago by some IP address who apparently thought that there ought to be a stub article about every person who ever married a United States governor.  If we had a policy of inherent notability for the the families of state government officials, a stub would survive without the inconveniences that come with giving a damn.  But first ladies and first husbands are not have to show their notability just like anyone else.  I have to agree with Horologium, there are probably 50 people every day who look at this and say "is this it?" Mandsford 12:55, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Did you look at the history of the article? Previous versions did have more content. Hence my request earlier to userfy so that I can bring this up to a stand alone article. Hasteur (talk) 14:13, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I did, before I tagged it. The extra content was a straight copy/paste from the state website, filled with promotional peacock words and totally uncited (which was deleted for copyvio). I'm not saying that there is no chance of making something good, but there is a dearth of reliable, independent sourcing to establish notability, and there isn't anything worth userfying here, as the article is 92 characters, and needs to be rewritten anyway to reflect dates. You can create a new version in your userspace without having the history of this article; the deleted text is available at http://www.governor.state.tx.us/about/firstlady.  Horologium  (talk) 14:45, 12 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep. There is an older, pre-alleged-copyvio version that has useful biographical information, as well already containing some of the right categories and formatting. The upgrade effort should start there. Google News archives indicates a number of articles about her background and activities, notably her health advocacy activities that have been significant enough that they've named the nursing school at Texas Tech University after her.. --Arxiloxos (talk) 15:55, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I've made a start to this process, adding content and some independent sources.--Arxiloxos (talk) 17:39, 12 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep People expect to see articles for first ladies and Texas is the second largest state in terms of population and area, the naming of of the school of nursing in her honor at Texas Tech, and the amount of independent media coverage. Whoisjohngalt (talk) 21:17, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep She's got a major school of nursing named for her, for heavens sake - how much more WP:NOTABILITY do you want? --MelanieN (talk) 01:30, 16 August 2010 (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.