Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Daniel Mulhern


 * 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   delete. no provision for spouse of elected officials in WP:POLITICIAN or similar, and no sources currently which allow article to pass WP:GNG. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 16:14, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Daniel Mulhern

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

This man is the husband of a notable person. Otherwise, he is not notable. Any mention of him can be included in his wife's article. There is no reason to include an article on him, especially since there is no citation to any sources. 75.1.7.70 (talk) 02:04, 6 February 2009 (UTC) Text copied from article's talk page. ➨ ❝ ЯEDVERS ❞ dedicated to making a happy man very old 19:25, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. The spouse of the sitting governor of a U.S. State is a position unto itself, with a specific role and duties, and a notable one at that. He more than meets the criteria for WP:BIO. Should we delete everyone on this list Category:Spouses of United States state governors? --Crunch (talk) 03:45, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
 * No one is suggesting that all of the articles in the category be deleted. Each article should be judged on its own merits. •••Life of Riley (T–C) 22:16, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment No they're not but these people are notable simply because they are spouses of Governors, i.e., First Ladies or First Gentlemen of their respective state. This is a significant public position that passes the criteria for WP:BIO. --Crunch (talk) 04:26, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep US Governor's spouse, US governor's husband is probably notable.  --Mr Accountable (talk) 05:47, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment Is it going to be wikipedia policy to have a separate article for the spouse of every single Governor in the United States? Are we going to extend that courtesy to the spouse of every Province in Canada? Michèle Dionne doesn't have her own article. What about other countries? Isn't it worth noting that there are no secondary sources to this article? I don't see how an argument can be made that the details of the life of a spouse of the executive of a regional subdivision is encyclopedic. 75.1.7.70 (talk) 16:46, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment. Yes, I think there is sufficient grounds to warrant an article for the spouse of each sitting governor of a U.S. State. The person who holds the position of First Lady/First Gentlemen of any U.S. state passes the criteria for WP:BIO. --Crunch (talk) 02:52, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - has its own claim to notability. However, I must disagree that being a spouse of an executive office holder of a sub-national unit is automatic notability. One must evaluate each person on their merits, this is kind of a special case of "notable for a single event". Like in those cases, the spouse should be part of the main article, until which time notability allows for a WP:SUMMARY. Of course, spouses of national executive office holders are probably automatically notable, even where the role has no legal standing.


 * The fact that the office of spouse of States of the USA usually have a "specific role and duties" is irrelevant, because so do say, the Chief of Staff etc. We are talking states here, notability is linked to the notability of the State/Province/Region: remember, this a world-wide encyclopedia, and if we go down this slope, we would end up with thousands of permastub articles on spouses of every regional governor of every article. That is not encyclopedic, and is precisely why we have notability as a criteria for inclusion: if its not notable enough for its own article, then it shouldn't have an article - even if it has biogrphical information that could belong in another article.--Cerejota (talk) 05:23, 14 February 2009 (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.