Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michele Bachmann submissive controversy


 * 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/merge to Michele Bachmann presidential campaign, 2012 Beeblebrox (talk) 23:55, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Michele Bachmann submissive controversy

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Not notable enough in its own right; no reason why this can't just be covered in the article about her own campaign. At the risk of sounding silly, we don't have "John Mayer David Duke Penis Controversy" as a separate article, do we? Difluoroethene (talk) 21:10, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm assuming you mean "her own campaign" (unless that was a Freudian slip)...where do you propose this be merged to? I think the comment has received sufficient coverage....and it will likely continue to receive coverage throughout her campaign.Smallman12q (talk) 21:16, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, I meant "her" not "his"; thanks for pointing that out. See Michele Bachmann presidential campaign, 2012. Difluoroethene (talk) 21:17, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Out of her growing list of gaffes, this one appears to be the most controversial and the most noteworthy (notable). I'll expand this article with more WP:RS...there are articles regarding the viewpoints and statements of politicians...this article is about Bachmann's notion and subsequent coverage that female submissiveness equates respect ( contrary to the wiki article on female submission) . Smallman12q (talk) 22:21, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
 * That article is about BDSM, and Bachmann obviously wasn't referring to submission in that sense... Difluoroethene (talk) 01:59, 15 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete. This "controversy" has remained relatively minor. It's short enough that it's better covered in either the bio or the campaign article. If it grows in notability it can be recreated.   Will Beback    talk    22:46, 14 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete. POV Fork.  I am not even sure this is a "controversy", from what I have seen the only controversy is the possible sexist nature of the question as it was stated.  I don't think there is a Hillary Clinton controversy about whether Bill Clinton would be running the show if Hillary was president article.  Arzel (talk) 23:31, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Merge to campaign article. Nominator is right in that this is nowhere near notable enough for its own article. The fact that the issue has come up multiple times means that deleting the content entirely might not be appropriate, though. Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 00:15, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete Clearly doesn't deserve its own article. NYyankees51 (talk) 00:45, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete as POV nonsense. This is not a "controversy" of encyclopedic proportions. Carrite (talk) 01:11, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Merge. No way this should have its own article, but it should be discussed in the campaign article. Gamaliel (talk) 03:17, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete POV Fork, no reason to be believe this so-called controversy deserves its own article. Truthsort (talk) 05:59, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete, I don't see enough sourcing to demonstrate this is a notable event. No prejudice against including the gaffe in the article: I just see no use for the redirect. --joe deckertalk to me 06:19, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions.  —Tom Morris (talk) 13:37, 15 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete - this is currently a POV fork and I can see no evidence that the "controversy" itself, if it can be called that, has any independent notability.-- Beloved Freak  16:35, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete or Merge. Obvious POV Fork, no evidence of independent notability.--JayJasper (talk) 18:38, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
 * The topic has recieved continued coverage: Salon, National Catholic Register, etc. Is it that the topic is not notable, or that the article is viewed as lacking neutrality in its current form?Smallman12q (talk) 20:34, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Both. Calling something a controversy when it isn't (and seems to have more to do with Byron York asking the question) and the fact that this violates WP:NOTNEWS. Truthsort (talk) 20:56, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Controversy is defined on wikipedia as "a state of prolonged public dispute or debate, usually concerning a matter of opinion."Smallman12q (talk) 21:29, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
 * And what evidence is there to suggest this is a prolonged dispute? Truthsort (talk) 22:17, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
 * There's an ongoing debate as to how to define/redefine submissive. For example see CNN video entitled 'Debate question spawns debate', and accompanying CNN article. For how long should a topic be debated before its considered prolonged? Smallman12q (talk) 23:40, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
 * The topic continues to receive coverage from WP:RS such as Sun Times,Sun News, and Christian post. If the article isn't viewed as nuetral, that can be corrected. However if the topic is viewed as not notable, that should be explicitly noted in the votes for clarity.Smallman12q (talk) 17:34, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Take a look at WP:NOTNEWS. Just because there are reliable sources does not automatically mean an article can be created on it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Truthsort (talk • contribs) 21:11, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree that having some WP:RS coverage doesn't automatically confer notability. However, a week's worth of commentary and analysis by dozens of different reliable sources meets WP:INDEPTH, WP:PERSISTENCE, and WP:DIVERSE. The amount of coverage and controversy generated by her comments suggest this is more than WP:ROUTINE or WP:MILL.Smallman12q (talk) 10:08, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

-The topic continues to receive coverage from rs including Understanding Michele Bachmann’s “Submission” (Time), Prejudice alive and well against political women(The Australian), Women, religion and fishnets (Washington Post), Susan Harrison Wolffis: Asking the tough questions, fairly (MLive.com), etc. Smallman12q (talk) 00:35, 20 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete. What a mess. I've heard of "tiresome controversies", "exciting controversies", "long-running controversies" and more, but a "submissive controversy" is a new one to me. Surely either a "submissiveness controversy" or a "'submissive' controversy". Its odd title aside, the article starts: The Michele Bachmann submissive controversy refers to the controversy surrounding Michele Bachmann's response to a question that she would be submissive to her husband. Oh? I'd thought that the response was one of the few things said by Bachmann that was not controversial. Her earlier comments may have been controversial, the question about them may have been controversial; no answer to this question could have satisfied all, but the articles in the (not conspicuously right-wing) papers I glanced at admired her handling of the question, even suggesting that it was deft. And anyway, the submissiveness seems a predictable and unremarkable part of the world-view of a graduate of Oral Roberts University. -- Hoary (talk) 23:53, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete or Merge as POVFORK. Ravensfire ( talk ) 15:45, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete A POV fork. This is a good example of a storm in a tea-kettle.  Hardly suitable for an encyclopedia article.  --Philosopher Let us reason together. 08:37, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete or Merge - more hog-piling than informative. Can br merged into her main article - if possible. Dinky town   talk  05:12, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
 * This is notable, meaning it is well documented by reliable sources, but the essay WP:COATRACK, and policy WP:BLP, limit tangential issues about people. 'Smerge to save attribution. Bearian (talk) 17:42, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
 * If I were to add positive commentary/reception about her remarks...would that be sufficient for the article not to fall under WP:COATRACK? The tone of the article can be changed...Smallman12q (talk) 22:04, 18 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.