Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chasten Buttigieg


 * 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 redirect to Pete Buttigieg. We can always look at this again in the future if things change. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:26, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

Chasten Buttigieg

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Not notable. Only being covered because of his husband, no significant coverage only fluff pieces. When it boils down to it, he is a mid-level educator married to the mayor of a relatively small city. Yes he has been mentioned a lot, but there is nothing substantive behind it, we don't have articles on celebrities' children or parents despite how much they may be in the news. Ivar the Boneful (talk) 15:45, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep almost certainly passes GNG for profile because of the campaign. Candy Carson is a somewhat similar page I wrote (she is a noted author however so a better claim to notability but I recall someone AfD'sd that page too). If the consensus is that this person does not get a stand alone article this page should surely be merged into their husband's page and the title redirected, which wouod have been the appropriate course of action instead of PROD and bringing to AfD. Legacypac (talk) 15:56, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep - With significant international coverage about him specifically, this easily passes WP:BASIC and WP:GNG. We routinely include biographies of notable politicians when coverage in reliable sources is significant. See for example Casey DeSantis, Judith Giuliani, and Ann Romney. The presence or absence of articles about the parents and children of celebrities have no bearing on this AfD since Buttigieg is not Mayor Pete's parent or child, not is Mayor Pete a celebrity per se. WP:GNG is the foundation of our notability guidelines.- MrX 🖋 16:19, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete Redirect - notability is not inherited. Atsme Talk 📧 02:24, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep. There is a significant coverage of specifically this person (refs by MrX above) - for obvious reason. My very best wishes (talk) 02:34, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete. Chasten has no independent notability. Last name does not grant notability. He's made zero public statements of any note too.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tedfitzy (talk • contribs) 03:56, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 17:17, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 17:17, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 17:18, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 17:19, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 17:20, 25 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Redirect to Pete Buttigieg. At the moment, he is not notable. If, however, Pete's presidential campaign gains traction and more media scrutiny will be focused on his spouse, Chasten would become notable and the article could be easily restored at that time. Banana Republic (talk) 14:47, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Pete. Notability is not inherited, so people do not clear the notability bar just because of who they happen to be married to — and that's true even if the marriage happens to generate a bit of human interest coverage because the person he's married to currently happens to be a candidate for political office, because it still isn't about Chasten doing anything noteworthy in his own right. Obviously if my dream of seeing a gay US president in my lifetime comes true next year, Chasten will qualify for an article at that time as the new First Gentleman, and if he accomplishes something else in the meantime that would get him over an SNG, such as publishing a best-selling book about his life as the husband of a presidential candidate and thus clearing WP:AUTHOR, then that will also change the equation. But GNG is not just a matter counting up the footnotes and keeping anything that happens to exceed two — we also take into account the context of what the person is getting coverage for, and this is not a context that clears the bar. And even with a couple of media hits in the mix, this as written is still parked about 70 per cent on primary sources, like YouTube videos and press releases and the self-published websites of his own employers, that do not count as support for notability at all. Bearcat (talk) 15:33, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Pete Buttigieg. Notability is not inherited. There is no office called "First Gentleman of South Bend." --Tataral (talk) 20:49, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Pete Buttigieg, not independently notable. Pawnkingthree (talk) 23:35, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep. There is tremendous public interest in Chasten right now. Since the article on Wikipedia on him was created two weeks ago, it has been accessed over 100,000 times. Over 300,000 people have followed him in the last few months on twitter to hear what he has to say . With articles such as "Chasten Buttigieg emerges as Mayor Pete's secret weapon" regularly appearing in publications such as The Hill, there is a far greater interest in learning about Chasten than most political spouses. He also has started to speak at events as a surrogate, speaking recently at a Human Rights Campaign Gala and NYU. I could see a case to be made for deleting the article on him in the future if Pete Buttigieg is no longer a presidential candidate and the interest in Chasten wanes, but while there is such an interest the open knowledge effort would be better for including an article about him. Mackmo (talk) 01:19, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Redirect This just seems TOOSOON. Maybe he will have independed coverage one day, but as of now it's all just stuff related to his husband.★Trekker (talk) 01:37, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment. There is huge amount information and publications about this person as obvious even from a simple Google search . If anyone is notable, this is him. Not sure why anyone can vote "delete". There is something wrong about it. My very best wishes (talk) 02:07, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment. I've added some more citations to the article using major publications in hopes that is helpful in demonstrating notability. Upon further reflection, I think one of the things about Chasten that makes him especially notable is that he's not just a politician's spouse - in addition to campaigning for his husband, he's also campaigning to be the first "First Gentleman" of the United States himself.Mackmo (talk) 02:43, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep Meets WP:GNG.  ---  Coffee  and crumbs  20:29, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep per WP:ANYBIO as shown in sources above and in the article. This should never have been brought to AfD. It might be a candidate for redirection, but definitely not deletion. Thsmi002 (talk) 20:38, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment - see WP:SUSTAINED - prior to the presidential bid by his spouse, this BLP would have remained unknown and would not have passed GNG, and again...notability is not inherited. If reliable sources cover a person only in the context of a single event, and if that person otherwise remains, or is likely to remain, a low-profile individual, we should generally avoid having a biographical article on that individual. Atsme Talk 📧 21:40, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment - No one has suggested that notability has or should be been inherited, so that argument is a straw man. WP:GNG applies, since sufficient source articles exist that focus specifically on the subject. This article is important because is documents a historical first.- MrX 🖋 00:42, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
 * There is nothing historical about Chasten Buttigieg at this point in time to warrant a stand alone article. If Pete Buttigieg wins the Democratic nomination, then maybe it would be a historical first. Until then, this BLP is a delete or redirect - notability is not inherited and he certainly doesn't meet WP:GNG or WP:N on his own merits without mention of Pete_Buttigieg. I suggest updating Pete_Buttigieg because it doesn't appear that Chasten was notable enough to have much of anything about him in that article, either. Atsme Talk 📧 01:49, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
 * From WP:GNG: "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list."
 * From WP:BASIC: "People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject." - MrX 🖋 11:54, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
 * From WP:GNG: "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list."
 * From WP:BASIC: "People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject." - MrX 🖋 11:54, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
 * From WP:GNG: "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list."
 * From WP:BASIC: "People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject." - MrX 🖋 11:54, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
 * From WP:GNG: "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list."
 * From WP:BASIC: "People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject." - MrX 🖋 11:54, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
 * From WP:GNG: "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list."
 * From WP:BASIC: "People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject." - MrX 🖋 11:54, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
 * From WP:BASIC: "People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject." - MrX 🖋 11:54, 29 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Valid reasons for deletion as a standalone are included in the following PAGs: WP:INVALIDBIO, WP:CRYSTALBALL, WP:RECENTISM, WP:NOTNEWS, WP:NEWSORG. All mention of Chasten in the newsy articles relies entirely on his being the husband of a gay candidate, and we simply don't use that to establish notability. Wikipedia is not a news source: it takes more than just routine news reports about a single event or topic to constitute significant coverage. We don't even use candidate coverage unless the person is notable in some other way. What has Chasten accomplished on his own that we can consider a notable achievement? Nothing that I could find. He is already included in the article of his spouse and that's where it belongs until he becomes notable on his own merits, regardless of how many news articles mention him in relation to being the spouse of a candidate. Atsme  Talk 📧 13:30, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
 * WP:VAGUEWAVE and WP:GASLIGHTING arguments for deleting an article about a demonstrably notable subject lack validity. The numerous sources speak for themselves. When responding to a comment that has three indents, the convention is to use four indents, not : .- MrX 🖋 13:45, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
 * MrX - stop the aspersions now. I'll not let you do this to me again. I'm sorry if you don't like my answers but based on my experience as a NPP/AfC reviewer, I'm going strictly by our PAGs. This discussion is logged in my diffs. Atsme Talk 📧 19:35, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
 * They're not aspersions; they are valid rebuttals to your arguments. You wrote"There is nothing historical about Chasten Buttigieg at this point" which shows that you apparently haven't read the sources, several of which I cited above that obliterate your argument. You also wrote "he certainly doesn't meet WP:GNG" (which seems like WP:GASLIGHTING, although it could be a misunderstanding of WP:GNG I suppose). It's an astounding assertion given that the subject is covered in considerable biographical depth in the more than a dozen sources that Coffeeandcrumbs and I cited. I also count at least 15 news sources that have specifically written about Chasten, as well as sustained news coverage as recently as two days ago. Finally, you listed five PAG shortcuts without any explanation of how they apply, which is why I cited WP:VAGUEWAVE. - MrX 🖋 22:08, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
 * My response to your following comment: Finally, you listed five PAG shortcuts without any explanation of how they apply, which is why I cited WP:VAGUEWAVE. MrX, I thought you were well-versed in our PAGs and didn't need an explanation, but I don't mind clarifying.
 * As creator of this article, you will naturally disagree with the "deletes and redirects", but they are solidly based in WP:PAGs. People who are members of the LGBT community are not automatically notable, and neither is being the spouse of a candidate for public office. Atsme Talk 📧 10:31, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Actually, I created the redirect, not the article. - MrX 🖋 01:22, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Actually, I created the redirect, not the article. - MrX 🖋 01:22, 1 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Redirect to Pete per Bearcat's strong argument.--MONGO (talk) 21:28, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Redirect to husband's article per... every relevant policy we have. His only notability – the only reason he is the subject of any media coverage – is from his relationship to someone notable. As such, any noteworthy information about him can be covered in that person's article. (Devin Nunes' cow also has a popular Twitter account, but that doesn't make it notable enough for a WP article.) -Jason A. Quest (talk) 22:06, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Redirect. There's no evidence of individual notability.Sandals1 (talk) 15:54, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Pete Buttigieg since, despite the numerous sources cited in this disicussion, subject lacks independent notability. To provide some perspective, we have an article on Jane O'Meara Sanders, the wife of another presidential candidate, but she is verifiably and independently already notable as "provost and interim president of Goddard College and president of Burlington College." She'd have her own article, per WP:GNG, even if she had never met Bernie Sanders in her life.
 * Every single item cited in the article and this discussion relates to the Pete Buttigieg's presidential bid. There is no source that focuses on the subjet alone and ignores his hudband's campaign.
 * Forensics on sources:
 * The text in the Indy Star is tellingly titled "What we know about Mayor Pete's husband".
 * The April 17 article as well as the March 17 one in Marie Claire are about Chasten's "first ever interview and the qeustions mostly concern his husband ("[here's] a cameo from Mayor Pete himself talking about how much he loves Chasten", "some oh-so-adorable details on his first date with Pete", etc) and a detailed story about the couple.
 * The Guardian report is mostly about how the relationship affects the campaign and about the campaign's progress (e.g."Pete’s rapid rise from small-city mayor to a serious contender to be the next president probably seems a rapid change for the couple"); the other Guardian article reflects on how Chasten "boosted his husband’s campaign" and about "life on the [campaign] trail".
 * The Slate piece is exclusively about how they met and their relationship.
 * Business Insider relates info about the couple ("The Buttigiegs are in part campaigning on their identity as gay men") and Chasten's notable traits ("dog lover", "junior high school teacher", "comedian") which carry no Wikinotability whatsoever on their own.
 * The Daily Beast reports the effect of a gay couple in a presidential race, as well as on society, which is quite a positive contribution by the couple.
 * The Hill characterizes Chasten as "Pete's secret weapon" and offers a text about Chasten's contribution to the campaign, e.g. "having Chasten Buttigieg play such a big role brings youth and authenticity to his husband's campaign, providing an advantage in a Democratic party where some are hungering for a fresh alternative".
 * The CBS piece contains an interview with the couple ("CBS This Morning co-host John Dickerson spoke with Buttigieg and his husband, Chasten").
 * And so on and so forth. There is no independent notability. Pete is Wikinotable, Chasten is not. Notability in Wikipedia is not contagious. When Pete wins the presidential election, we might have a case. As things currently stand, we do not. We only have personal preferences. -The Gnome (talk) 12:00, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
 * You and some others probably do not understand what "independent coverage" means. According to WP:GNG, "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list... "Independent of the subject" excludes works produced by the article's subject or someone affiliated with it. For example, advertising, press releases, autobiographies, and the subject's website are not considered independent". My very best wishes (talk) 15:27, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Greetings, My very best wishes. You misunderstood my message. I was not referring to sources being independent but to the subject itself possessing independent notability. In my very humble assessment of the sources I examined (and presented in some detail above), whatever notability Chasten possesses is tied hands and feet to his husband's presidential campaign. However, I will take your advice and revisit Wikipedia's policies and guidelines that are relevant to notability. Take care. -The Gnome (talk) 20:55, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
 * A person can be described in a large number of independent RS (and therefore satisfy WP:GNG) for a number of reasons. That could be because of his work achievments, crimes, books, wives, husbands, parents, children, whatever. That does not really matter. Obviously, these books/children/wives/whatever will also appear in the same publications. It does not mean such sources do not count. It is only important that the subject/person was discussed in some detail, not just briefly mentioned in these sources. One common exception is WP:One event, but he is not notable only for one specific incident. My very best wishes (talk)


 * Keep. Today he's the subject of a pretty extensive profile in the Washington Post: Chasten Buttigieg has been a homeless community-college student and a Starbucks barista. Now, he could be ‘first gentleman.’ He has a following on social media in the hundreds of thousands. Don't really see a reason to delete at this point. Edited to add: He's also on the cover of Time magazine next week: Cover of May 13, 2019 Time magazine. Not good enough? Moncrief (talk) 13:21, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep. Was on the fence and was leaning toward redirect per Bearcat and others, but he's the subject of several new articles and profiles. While his notability is still tied to his husband, he seems to be gaining his own notoriety, and it certainly will not decrease in the immediate future. –  Broccoli  &#38; Coffee (Oh hai) 18:15, 2 May 2019 (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.