Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2011 September 6

6 September 2011
{| class="mw-collapsible mw-collapsed" style="width: 100%; text-align: left; border: 0px; margin-top: 0.2em;" ! style="background-color: #f2dfce; font-weight:normal; text-align:left;" |
 * 4 Michele Bachmann articles – Keep deleted, but recreation of policy-and-guideline-compliant articles is permitted. – T. Canens (talk) 18:29, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
 * style="text-align:center;" | The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. 
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |

Per WP: CCC; consensus can change. At the time this article (and four others concerning Bachmann's early political career) were deleted by consensus, it was because Bachmann was then a relatively little-known Minnesota congresswoman who ranked near the bottom of the "power ranking" index. This is no longer the case, as she is now a presidential candidate and one of the highest-profile Republicans on a national stage. As such, anything relating to her is now inherently more notable than it was before, just like articles on Barack Obama's early life probably wouldn't have been notable in 2003, but now are unquestionably notable. As such, I feel the articles (four in total) on Bachmann that were deleted before should be restored and cleaned up. Besides the one linked above, the other three include, , and. Difluoroethene (talk) 06:28, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep deleted – As User:Dhartung and User:DGG pointed out in that AFD, there were some rather significant NPOV issues and sensationalist overtones in those articles that lead me to believe that they need to remain deleted. Her status today doesn't change any of that. –MuZemike 06:40, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
 * No, but it shouldn't be too hard to fix the problems you mentioned. Why not just restore the articles and then have editors remove the NPOV issues? Difluoroethene (talk) 12:13, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
 * The problems MuZemike mentioned and the reasons the articles were deleted are article scope. The way to fix them is by writing different articles.  Or, more specifically, by simply including the information that would be in these in Michele Bachman instead.  You have failed to advance any convincing argument otherwise above, especially given the NPOV concerns that the articles had.  Restoring these wouldn't help anyone.  Cheers.   lifebaka ++ 12:53, 6 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep deleted-If someone were to write new articles on these topics, maybe, maybe there might be a potential article there. Unless that happens, well, consensus can change, but I see no evidence that it has.--Fyre2387 (talk • contribs) 21:58, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Allow spinout from Michele Bachmann's own article once enough RS'ed, BLP-compliant, NPOV content on any of these has emerged to merit a WP:SS article. Until that point... no. Jclemens (talk) 03:43, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Perhaps restoring them to the Incubator might be the best course of action? Difluoroethene (talk) 04:06, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
 * No, that's not what I said. These are BLP issues that allegedly had NPOV issues: rewrite them from scratch, spin them out if/when they meet standalone article criteria. Jclemens (talk) 00:37, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Permit recreation if someone can write a neutral policy-compliant draft. Two reasons were given in the AfD to support the deletion: that the articles were biased and that Bachmann wasn't significant enough for this level of detail. Although the second reason may no longer be valid after her presidential run the first remains. Hut 8.5 10:45, 10 September 2011 (UTC)