Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Charmaine Yoest


 * 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.   A rbitrarily 0   ( talk ) 03:01, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Charmaine Yoest

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Yoest's notability is borderline. With just one independent source dedicated to Yoest's life outside of her position as leader of Americans United for Life, the biography fails WP:GNG and WP:BASIC. Binksternet (talk) 20:22, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment. Here is the one good source: "Abortion opponents have a new voice", Christian Science Monitor. Binksternet (talk) 20:28, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Merge/Redirect –agree with nominator, on her own Ms. Yoest does not meet current requirements. However, why not Merge/Redirect to Americans United for Life under a section labeled current and past CEO/Presidents.  Meets notability guidelines than.  Thanks ShoesssS Talk 20:43, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 14:58, 15 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment Keep -- I am the editor who reinstated the article on the advice of another editor last week. I have a potential conflict with this topic, because I work for AUL, the organization Charmaine Yoest is president of, and I would like to see the article remain. Here are a few points I can make about why it should stay:


 * I have made some changes to the article, so it better complies with BLP policy and verifiability guidelines. I've added a source to verify the "Family" section, and several to verify "Affiliations". I've also removed the "Quote" section because it didn't seem very encyclopedic. And I've deleted the infobox because while there was once a photo, there isn't now.


 * More importantly, I believe notability can be demonstrated from other sources, and these should be included in the article. In addition to the in-depth Christian Science Monitor profile Binksternet has linked, there are other good sources:


 * Charmaine is identified as one of a handful of female leaders of the pro-life movement in a Washington Post article from November 3, 2011.


 * She was profiled in some depth in a long article in the National Catholic Register in October 2011. There are some good details here about her education and career.


 * Yoest is one of the key figures in a New Yorker article from November 14, 2011. Unfortunately only the abstract is online, but she is the subject of a standalone paragraph, which I'll quote here:


 * Yoest, who is warm and friendly and smart and a mother of five, has a Ph.D. in politics from the University of Virginia; her dissertation examined parental-leave policy and gender equity in the academy. Her first job out of college was in the Reagan White House. Then she worked for the Family Research Council. She serves on the executive committee of the Susan B. Anthony List. She was a senior adviser for Mike Huckabee's Presidential campaign.


 * It seems like this would be useful for filling out some details in the article as well. And she is also paired as the oppositional figure to the article's central figure, Planned Parenthood's Cecile Richards:


 * Richards and Yoest are like Cold Warriors who came of age after the Cold War began.


 * Charmaine is also identified as a prominent critic of Planned Parenthood in a syndicated column by Kathryn Jean Lopez from November 7, 2011.


 * Perhaps less relevant to notability, but I'll also add that her work in opposition to Planned Parenthood has also earned her media appearances, such as this one on MSNBC early in October 2011.


 * As the leader of a national organization with a past and current role in important public policy matters, who has also received coverage from a wide number of publications, I think Charmaine Yoest should be considered notable. Another relevant matter is the recent deletion debate involving another pro-life female leader, Marjorie Dannenfelser. The result of the debate was to keep and I think, if anything, there are more indepedent reliable sources establishing Charmaine Yoest's notability. I hope the article will be kept so it can be improved. --ProLifeDC (talk) 16:31, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Please note that I decided to change my Comment to a Keep.ProLifeDC (talk) 02:00, 22 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep The Christian Science Monitor profile cited by Binksternet is extensive and more than sufficient to establish notability. Article certainly needs improvement but the notability is there. NYyankees51 (talk) 17:52, 15 November 2011 (UTC)


 * KEEP: notable enough (caveat: I created the article). Quis separabit?  18:39, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Also, just so it is clear and lest anyone assume otherwise: I don't agree with Yoest's philosophy or agenda regarding abortion, but she is a reasonably influential activist so I feel she has some measure of notability. Quis separabit?  19:17, 18 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Redirect to Americans United for Life; not notable independent of her organization. Significant coverage in only one reliable source fails WP:BIO on its face, and even if a few paragraphs elsewhere were to be found, that's still not consistent with the spirit of the rule. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 22:09, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi Roscelese, I hope you'll reconsider your support for redirecting the article. If you'll read my note above, I have provided several other articles in addition to the Christian Science Monitor that focus on Charmaine Yoest, particularly the National Catholic Register, The New Yorker and The Washington Post. The first one is unquestionably an in-depth story about her leadership in the pro-life movement overall. The second is not primarily about her, but she receives considerable attention, and WP:GNG does say "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material." The third article contains less information, but it certainly recognizes her as a leader in the movement. It is not accurate to characterize these as "a few paragraphs elsewhere."
 * And while she is primarily notable for her work at AUL, this is not a case of an individual associated with an organization where the individual has received scant attention. To the contrary, she has clearly been singled out for coverage by major mainstream and religious news organizations, not just at AUL but in the larger movement. I hope you'll agree that these count toward her notability. Thanks, ProLifeDC (talk) 00:10, 22 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep The Christian Monitor article along with some coverage in National Catholic and New Yorker push her over WP:BASIC. Numerous mentions in other references also add to notability, collectively. I'd like to compliment ProLifeDC on the way he has handled the COI issue.– Lionel (talk) 01:17, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep Yoest clearly meets WP:BIO per the sources found above, in which Yoest is discussed in depth—"Abortion opponents have a new voice" from The Christian Science Monitor, "Behind the Pro-Life Victories of 2011" from National Catholic Register, and "Birthright: What's next for Planned Parenthood?" (relevant page archived here) from The New Yorker. Goodvac (talk) 02:52, 22 November 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.