Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Judith Steinberg Dean


 * 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. Bbb23 (talk) 11:24, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Judith Steinberg Dean

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Not independently notable from her husband Howard Dean. Does not pass GNG or significant coverage. I suggest redirect to her husband howard dean BlackAmerican (talk) 06:11, 5 September 2016 (UTC) (categories)
 * Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Articles for deletion/Log/2016 September 5.  —cyberbot I   Talk to my owner :Online 06:34, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:37, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Vermont-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:52, 5 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Weak keep. Aren't and  in-depth and reliable sources? Two such sources probably suffice for WP:BIO. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here  07:18, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep as per available sources (Salon and NYT above); here's an article from The Boston Globe, 2003; Dean seemed to be unusual that she insisted on keeping her medical career ahead of Vermont's First Lady duties or campaigning for her husband:
 * "Dean's wife focusing on career, not campaign".
 * More in White House Studies Compendium, Volume 6: llink
 * K.e.coffman (talk) 07:26, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Redirect name and include any relevant information in her husband's article and the campaign article for the Democratic primary for that year. Just do not see where it rises to level of notability for a stand alone article on its own. A footnote of passing interest only. Wikipedia is not a newspaper. Kierzek (talk) 17:32, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Weak keep as per above. She asserts some notability as per the sources provided above, although it is not overwhelming. ~ EDDY  ( talk / contribs ) ~ 15:08, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Godsy (TALK CONT ) 04:57, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep just enough attention in RS to pass GNG. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 17:56, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep: Adequate indicia of notability.  Passes GNG.   Montanabw (talk) 09:03, 28 September 2016 (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.