Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michelle Paige Paterson


 * 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, nomination statement by banned editor discounted.  Sandstein  20:21, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Michelle Paige Paterson

 * and Todd Palin ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

This article should be deleted and merged with her husband. Look at the spouses of governors of other states (Alaska, Florida, Illinois, etc.) and they don't have first lady articles. This article says nothing except that she works for an insurance company and gives her date of birth.

I don't hate her but it was suggested by an administrator that I could start this housecleaning process.

She is not notable and not wikipedia material. FYW09 (talk) 23:12, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions.   —Eastmain (talk) 02:39, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions.   —Eastmain (talk) 02:39, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. Lobbyists and ex-lobbyists (such as Michelle Paige Paterson) can be notable if they have significantly influenced legislation. I think the potential for conflict of interest (in the non-Wikipedia sense) when an ex-lobbyist is married to a politician is particularly interesting, even if there has been no actual conflict of interest. I won't argue that every spouse of a governor is notable, but I think this one is. --Eastmain (talk) 02:39, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
 * There are no reliable sources that say that she "significantly influenced legislation."


 * Delete Fails WP:BIO. Masterpiece2000   ( talk ) 02:50, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. Disagree with Masterpiece that subject fails WP:BIO: she clearly "has been the subject of published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject", which is the basic notability criterion for people. Being the first African-American first lady of New York hints of notability as well. Last, the article contains useful information and is well-referenced. -FrankTobia (talk) 03:25, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep New York is a populous and prominent state and the position of First Lady, while largely ceremonial, is nonetheless influential. This aside, my opinion would be for 'weak keep' except for the fact that she has made herself a public person through regular, formal interviews. Her public admission of an affair was entirely with her direct consent and involvement and is also notable, if only as an unusual way to begin a term of governorship, although it received wide coverage internationally. In addition, the media has covered potential conflicts of interest over her lobbying activities in some detail. Paid lobbying is not simply another job, it is an activity with significant political implications, and there should be no assumed right to privacy for such activities, indeed quite the reverse in a democracy. Debate   木  13:48, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
 * If so keep Todd Palin because Alaska is the biggest state, far bigger than two New Yorks combined. He is also notable as being the first man, just like Peterson is the first African American for NY. A no to racism but yes to sexism is not allowed. Palin and Peterson should both be kept or both deleted. FYW09 (talk) 23:02, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
 * As far as I can see, the Todd Palin article is not currently up for AFD, but if it was my opinion would be partially based on the degree to which he had assumed a public persona after the election of his wife, something I haven't investigated since that article has not been nominated for AFD as far as I can tell. The argument is specious, however, per WP:OSE. Each case needs to be considered on its own merits based on a range of relevant factors. Debate   木  00:39, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
 * See Articles for deletion/Todd Palin. Garion96 (talk) 06:43, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Ah, looks like it's back then. :-) I can't say if the new Todd Palin is any better than the old one, but it's certainly bigger based on the comments in the last AFD. Regardless, AFD is not a policy setting body and precedent does not apply. As above, each article is assessed independently on its merits and not all arguments are given equal weight by the closing admin. It's hard to determine what weight the closing admin gave to each argument at the old Todd Palin, but my guess is that the lack of content (or at least lack of reliable sources), was a major factor, not simply Mr Palin's status as "first gentleman". Debate   木  07:07, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Ugh, I see Garion96 was the closing admin. I knew I'd seen that name somewhere before. %^] Debate   木  09:03, 17 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Ahhhh... article has been nominated for AFD per User_talk:Garion96 and WP:Point. It's all clear now. Move along, move along, nothing to see here... Debate   木  13:55, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

And, note that has been indef blocked for being a sockpuppet of  banned   so this entire item should be closed. Tvoz / talk 02:25, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge with David Patterson and Sarah Palin. Both articles are just spouse articles and fail WP:BIO.  Both aren't really the source of published sources except minor pieces.  In Wikipedia, there is great political bias and attacks on editors so we need to act cautiously and in the same way and not because meatpuppets from political campaigns invade Wikipedia.  Editors who are in favor of keep one spouse's article but against keeping another equivalently written spouse's article should be treated as meatpuppets of politicians.  This AFD is also poorly written because the Todd Palin article is not highlighted the same way as the Peterson article. (partially repaired) Presumptive (talk) 05:22, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Weak keep but preferably merge Not particularly notable, but passes the threshold per WP:BIO. I'm not sure she warrants her own article, though. Ani  Mate  00:55, 19 June 2008 (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.