Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Marcus Bachmann

As the close approaches, questionable keeps for the closing admin to consider.


 * . WP:PERNOM + WP:OTHERSTUFF.
 * . WP:ITSNOTABLE
 * . WP:VAGUEWAVE
 * . (!vote was "per WP:HOTTIE")
 * . WP:VAGUEWAVE
 * . "Is no-brainer"
 * . WP:ITSNOTABLE
 * . WP:ITSNOTABLE with a dash of argumentum ad hominem
 * . "The guy seems to be notable"
 * . WP:SPA

Tarc (talk) 01:16, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
 * As the close approaches, questionable deletes for the closing admin to consider.


 * . WP:PERNOM.
 * . WP:Not notable.
 * . WP:PERNOM.
 * . WP:BELONG.
 * . WP:Not notable and WP:UGLY.
 * . WP:PERNOM.
 * . WP:PERNOM and WP:UNENCYCLOPEDIC.
 * . WP:PERNOM.
 * . WP:PERNOM.
 * . WP:UGLY.
 * . WP:PERNOM.
 * . WP:PERNOM.


 * Silver seren C 03:03, 25 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Are you saying that the nominator doesn't have a legitimate policy based rationale for deletion? Now, I'm not asking if you agree with it, but if you call out every "per nom" vote as questionable then you're really questioning the nominators rationale.  It is perfectly valid to say that someone else has already made the same argument you are making.  Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 03:08, 25 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I am saying that "reasonable counter-arguments" have been raised in the discussion in regards to the nomination, so a "per nom" vote is not really a support for anything, as the users voting per nom are not addressing the counter-arguments that have been raised against the nominator's argument. Silver  seren C 03:13, 25 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Not every user can be expected to address every counter-argument and forcing them too only favours the rabid partisans on the particular issue over the general editors. Favouring the partisans, in turn, turns the discussion into... ..what it has. Personally I see the WP:PERNOM and WP:ITSNOTABLE votes as part of the concensus. Stuartyeates (talk) 03:30, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I would consider them valid to some extent. *shrugs* I only wanted to point out that the same sort of Arguments not to make in deletion discussions applies to the delete voters as well. Silver  seren C 03:47, 25 July 2011 (UTC)


 * The keepers cited are full of "hottie", "seems to be notable", and so on, i.e. demonstrably dismissible. Seren's are based on a conservative (lol irony) interpretation of the Article Squad's wiki-philosophy regarding article retention, i.e. personal opinion and not policy/guideline-based.  Amusingly enough, I had initially had seren's entry in my list, but gave him the benefit of the doubt and removed it, as it was somewhat expanded from a typical "argument to avoid".  Remixing my intro sentence was rather petty btw, but not all that unexpected.  Tarc (talk) 04:12, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Beginning the thread was "rather petty". -- David  Shankbone  04:30, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I thought creating this section was petty. The closing moderator can gauge consensus on their own, they don't need users involved in the debate trying to tell them what to throw out. Silver  seren C 06:50, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
 * So what is your purpose in adding to it? Kevin (talk) 06:58, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
 * To show that the same thing could be applied to the delete voters and it wasn't just keep voters making arguments to avoid. If Tarc had shown issues with both types of comments, both keep and delete voters, that would have been fine, it would have been a prompting for all voters in the AfD to actually use a policy based reason in their vote. But the use of just Keep voters shows that it was merely done to try to influence the closing admin. Silver  seren C 09:00, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

The reason I comment "per nom" is that I have nothing further to add and the nominator has stated what I feel. I do try to add more if necessary. While I rarely get involved in XFD debates, I am aware that closers focus primarily on arguments made and that "what he said" comments likely will not have as much weight as an original argument. Still, I hope that closers do note the "per nom" comments and realize that others do agree with the nominator's argument so that he/she really heeds the nominator's statement. On another note, while I am not really perturbed, I do wish that when my name is mentioned that someone would notify me. This is not the first time I've discovered my name mentioned in a debate with no notification. Thanks. Ripberger (talk) 08:10, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
 * In an AfD debate, even if you agree with what the nominator stated, it's still better to reiterate the nominator's argument than to make a WP:PERNOM argument. The issue with per nom is that, if the debate in the AfD has disproven part of the nominator's statement, then it is confusing to what a per nom is referring to. If it is referring to the disproven part, then such a vote should be ignored. But it's impossible to know what they mean if someone just says per nom or per any other use in the debate. It should just be common practice that, if you're going to say per nom, also include a sentence or two explaining the exact parts of the nominator's argument that you agreed with. If I wanted to, I could also cite WP:VAGUEWAVE with your comment, because just saying "BLP concerns" means absolutely nothing. You need to specifically explain what you mean when you're going to make a vote. Silver  seren C 09:00, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
 * So I should repeat the nominator's statement instead of just saying "I agree with the nominator's argument?" That seems unnecessary and excessive, but I will try to remember that in future discussions.  I do not believe that Wikipedia is capable of hosting BLP articles with its current structure.  Given the BLP subject of this AFD is attached to a current political candidate, I truly doubt that a neutral BLP article can be made with the present political climate.  I did not think that argument could be made in an AFD, so I did not add that. Ripberger (talk) 19:43, 25 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Just chiming in to note that my opinion is based off our BLP policy, and not the ATA essay. Also, there are many times when AfD can and should be used in place of cleanup, such as cases where the article is fundamentally flawed and would need a complete rewrite (instead of citations or wikification) to become acceptable. This is the norm with spammy pages (csdG11), for example.   Them  From  Space  12:51, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Next step?
I think that the closing admin made the wrong decision. A cursory look at Google search results seems to indicate that there are plenty of sources predominently about him (and not his wife). I'm wondering if deletion review is the correct course of action or if the article should be recreated with special care given to cite sources which are predominantly about him. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:48, 25 July 2011 (UTC)


 * If you believe the discussion to be incorrect, deletion review is the correct venue to challenge it. You can of course create a userspace draft of a new article that addresses those issues and then present it at DRV as an argument as to why deletion should be overturned. Regards  So Why  20:58, 25 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Personally I think that the best approach would be to build an article outside userspace based entirely on references that either don't mention the subject's wife or are dated prior to her recent notability-enhancing actions. I believe that you can invite third parties to edit pages in your userspace, so you don't have to do it by yourself. Stuartyeates (talk) 21:14, 25 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Well, either way, we need to compile a list of reliable sources which are predominently about this person (and not his wife).  That should address the major issue brought up at the AfD regardless of whether we take this up at deletion review or create an article in our user space (or where ever).  I don't think it's necessary (or even possible) to find sources that don't mention his wife.  We just have to make sure that the main focus of the articles are about him and not her.  I have no interest in this topic.   Perhaps someone can get the ball rolling with a list of sources?  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:08, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
 * As you can see from my Sandbox of the article, most of the sources focused on Marcus, not Michele. -- David  Shankbone  22:11, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Can you copy and paste the sources which are predominantly about him to this discussion? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:19, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I would still hold that the education one is the most obviously about him. Silver  seren C 23:07, 25 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes, that looks like an excellent source. I'll create a list below. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:17, 25 July 2011 (UTC)


 * If you want me to look up and link to older sources that discuss him before all of this, I can do that. And then we can fit them into the article. Silver  seren C 23:07, 25 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Silver seren: I reviewed your sources and they all look good except for this one. At only 6 sentences, I wouldn't describe this as significant coverage.  The rest look great, though.  Also, the Salon article (added by Jethrobot) looks good, too. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:51, 26 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks! A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 01:55, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Is Newsy.com a reliable source? I have their app for my iPad but don't really know too much about them. One of their reports was featured on ParentDish.com (which I believe is a reliable source). A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 01:34, 26 July 2011 (UTC)


 * The Education of Marcus Bachmann
 * Marcus Bachmann says his clinics not anti-gay
 * Marcus Bachmann says he is not anti-gay, is very wrong
 * Bachmann’s Christian counseling clinic receives state funds (June 4, 2010)
 * 2008 Interview on KKMS
 * Blogger Who Posted Marcus Bachmann’s ‘Barbarians’ Remark: ‘I Didn’t Doctor a Damn Thing’
 * Marcus Bachmann insists his Christian counseling clinics are not anti-gay
 * Marcus Bachmann becomes sideshow
 * Marcus Bachmann, steady force in wife’s rise, now caught in the glare; questions about clinic
 * Clinic tied to Bachmann questioned over therapies


 * Is anyone going to appeal this closure? I really can't imagine how anyone could read through that discussion and find that the result was "delete". The most likely result would have been "no consensus" IMO. --MelanieN (talk) 01:27, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
 * We're collecting sources primarily about Marcus above so that we can improve a userspace draft and present it in the DRV. So, yes, we will, but there's some things we want to get fixed up first. Silver  seren C 01:29, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks. The closing administrator, and most of the "delete" !votes, focused on WHY he is notable (or why he shouldn't be notable), rather than WHETHER he is notable, and I don't think that meets Wikipedia's guidelines; notable is notable. --MelanieN (talk) 01:32, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Taking the close to DRV is fine and is something I would have anticipated. What I don't like in the above comments is the apparent desire to immediately try to recreate this article if possible--initially in userspace, but then presumably moving to mainspace--apparently by adding in a few more sources. Doing that does not magically undo the AfD or alleviate the concerns addressed there. This was a very contentious debate, and for the side whose arguments did not win out to immediately continue pressing the issue strikes me as an exceedingly bad idea.

Give it some time, let a few months go by, and then re-evaluate the subject's notability. Wikipedia and planet earth will be just fine if Marcus Bachmann does not have a full-fledged article for a little while. I think some editors here need to learn when to drop the stick, at least for the time being. By all means question the nominator's rationale at DRV, but if the close is upheld there then just accept that we will not have an article on Marcus Bachmann for the time being. It's not a big deal. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 14:27, 26 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I disagree. This was a bad close (it should have been No Consensus) and it should be appealed. In fact I don't agree with the attitude of the others here to spend all this time working on sources; I say take it straight to DRV and say, the closer got it wrong, the consensus was not "delete". --MelanieN (talk) 14:45, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Well then we are not disagreeing Melanie, at least on this aspect. As I said it is perfectly fine and understandable to take the matter to DRV and nothing is stopping you or anyone else from doing that (the sooner the better in my view). The thread was opened though suggesting that simply recreating the article with other sources was another path, and I think that is a horrendous idea. Even if a userspace draft is made with new sourcing, ostensibly just for the purposes of presenting it at DRV, I think that is a terrible idea. Appeal the close on the merits of the closing admin's rationale, but hold off on working on a new version of the article until the dust settles and until we determine whether other editors find the close acceptable or not. If the close is upheld or if there is no consensus to overturn, then no one should be worrying about working on a Marcus Bachmann article for the immediate future. That's my point. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 14:52, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Silverseren and the rest - would you be offended if I simply took this bad close to DRV right now? To me the issue is not coming up with more sources, it is that the closing administrator made a bad decision. In effect he engaged in the discussion and made himself into a super-!vote, rather than evaluating the consensus. --MelanieN (talk) 15:09, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, I see that Roscelese has already taken it to deletion review. --MelanieN (talk) 16:46, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeah, sorry it didn't occur to me to check the AfD talk page. (Since the AfD page itself is for discussion, I usually forget that it has a talk page as well.) Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 04:43, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

This is sad
So even after a close where the admin went to great lengths to give a proper explanation of the consensus found in the AfD, there are people who are still going to persist in pushing this? Still insisting on the sham of creating a simple biography based on innocent sources? Still cannot admit that this is a polarizing conservative figure that you want to humiliate, just like Rick Santorum's "google problem" ?

Despite my own leftist leanings, I will not sit by and watch this project be used as a political tool for any side, and I will do my damn best to ensure that this sham of an article never again sees the light of day.

You want a war?

Game on.

Tarc (talk) 02:10, 26 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Huh?! I have absolutely no interest in this article's topic. I couldn't care less about the politics that are involved.  All I see is an article which has received significant coverage by reliable sources which are independent of the article.  To me, this is an inclusionist vs deletionist debate.  For anyone to claim that I am "still going to persist in pushing this" is a gross violation of WP:AGF, not to mention "You want a war?  Game on." is a violation of WP:BATTLEGROUND.  I think you should withdraw yourself from this debate before you are topic-banned from it.  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 02:18, 26 July 2011 (UTC)


 * The battleground was formed the moment the article was created, it is a gun-fight, and I'm making damn sure to bring something bigger than a knife. I didn't create it.  This is above and beyond the witless and petty inclusion-ism vs. deletion-ism wiki-squabbles...if that is all you're here for, I'm sure there's some television episode's plot-only article or 4th-rate D-list porn star up for deletion that could be better served by your time.


 * I seem to be one of the few who hasn't actually lost perspective as to what an encyclopedia is. It isn't TMZ.  It isn't a publishing arm for the Democratic Party.  it isn't for taking potshots at politicians we don't like. Tarc (talk) 02:29, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Deletion review
This article has been appealed to deletion review. --MelanieN (talk) 16:46, 26 July 2011 (UTC)