Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anita Thigpen Perry (3rd 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. Strong sourced arguments to keep. Notability is not temporary, though occasionally consensus does change. In this case, it doesn't. (non-admin closure) BusterD (talk) 03:42, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

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

Non-notable politician's wife; fails WP:NOT Orange Mike   &#x007C;   Talk  01:06, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions.  Eastmain (talk • contribs)  01:20, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions.  — Eastmain (talk • contribs)  01:20, 12 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep. The references cited indicate that she is notable in her own right. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 01:20, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
 * comment - how? I see nothing that is not from the penumbra of her husband and his office. -- Orange Mike  &#x007C;   Talk  01:27, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. Per the arguments and evidence presented in the prior AfD, which correctly concluded that there's sufficient evidence of her independent notability. --Arxiloxos (talk) 04:14, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep as coverage by reliable third-party sources of her and her activities, not simply as a wife, more than meet the verifiability and notability thresholds. (Let it snow.) - Dravecky (talk) 05:40, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete, non notable wife of politician. Polozooza (talk) 09:48, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Strong delete While some other users have claimed above that she is notable in her own right, they fail to define how. Apart from being a politican's wife, there is nothing notable about her, at least not in the article. She has a master of science degree in nursing, that is hardly notable. She is a member of the methodist church. Not notable either. Apart from being married to Rick Perry, there is nothing notable at all about this lady. Delete and redirect to Rick Perry.Jeppiz (talk) 11:36, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep (My previous comments were out of line and I have removed them so as not to distract from the topic at hand. My apologies to Orange Mike and the other editors.) Sincerely, Veriss (talk) 06:35, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
 * reply to gratuitous ad hominem attack - Veriss, I'm proud to say that I've nominated for deletion, or argued for the deletion of, dozens of articles about non-notable persons whose politics I find more sympatico than Rick Perry. In fact, I've been assailed for it. Your attack on me for being honest and upfront about my own politics subverts the very concept of full disclosure, and is counter-productive in the extreme, bringing utter irrelevancies into this discussion and violating our expectation of civility in discourse. -- Orange Mike  &#x007C;   Talk  18:42, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
 * May I remind you of Wikipedia's policies about comments on others. By bringing up to discussion the political opinions of the user who nominated the article for deletion, you violate the rules of Wikipedia. What we are interested in here is arguments for or against the notability of the subject, not your personal thoughts about the political views of others. Comment on the subject, not on other users! Jeppiz (talk) 12:46, 16 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep. Subject more than meets WP:GNG. And yes, the sources cover her because she's married to the governor. But they do cover her and they cover her extensively, which meets Wikipedia's requirements of WP:NOTABILITY, WP:V & WP:RS. —Yk Yk Yk  talk ~ contrib 07:22, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete. She has done nothing notable on her own. OrangeMike is correct that WP:NOT is the applicable guideline here. The third-party coverage is directly related to her husband, and perhaps that's what's causing the confusion. The wife of a U.S. President rates an article. The wife of a major party nominee, quite likely. She is neither. She is the wife of a declared candidate. At this point, the information belongs in the Rick Perry article, and only there. It's there, but oddly it's hidden in the Early life section. The article is missing the usual Personal life section at the end, which is used to include spouse, children, personal interests, activities and awards. 99.50.188.77 (talk) 23:22, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Strong keep. To me this is baffling deletionism. As the 2012 campaign heats up, the interest in the candidates' spouses and families will increase astronomically. Why delete an article that is likely to be re-created later? Moreover, she has been the first lady of the nation's second-most populous state for a decade. How is she not notable enough for a Wikipedia article? Please note the two AfD votes already taken in 2010; the result both times was Keep. Has something changed since then to make Thigpen Perry less notable? Moncrief (talk) 16:12, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
 * If anything, she became more notable after Perry's announcement of his candidacy, which occurred around the same time of this nomination. —Yk Yk Yk  talk ~ contrib 16:38, 17 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep. She has a nursing school named after her, which was covered by an independent source. She has had other coverage of her own activities, independent of the Perry administration. I think she's notable enough to have her own article. Loves  Macs  (talk) 16:24, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep - Is there any way to salt a Keep so it doesn't keep getting nominated for deletion? As I pointed out at AFD #2, she's got a major school of nursing named after her, how much more notability do you want? --MelanieN (talk) 02:29, 19 August 2011 (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.