Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Amanda Marcotte

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. Veinor ^{(talk to me)} 03:59, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Amanda Marcotte

Amanda Marcotte (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Contested prod - basically just a blogger who got fired from a campaign for blogging. Sourced basically only to the blogs (I have since removed all embarassing information about living people sourced unreliably) Hipocrite - «Talk» 16:18, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. The current version is all but unintelligible and probably does not make an obvious case for notability, but better versions exist in the history. This relates to a controversy that was picked up in print by National Review and other major publications. - Smerdis of Tlön 19:36, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. The event made the print news, and will almost certainly have some bearing on the upcoming '08 election. grendel|khan 19:38, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, first notable flap of the '08 campaign, will likely continue to be referenced in stories about Edwards campaign and stories about other candidates interacting with supporters using the internet. --Dhartung | Talk 21:00, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
• Comment Depends on whether it can conform to WP:NPOV. Some editors are removing the information about Marcotte's comments about the Duke lacrosse and that people other than conservatives and Christians were offended by what she said. Goldfritha 01:39, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, not just a blogger, this received mass media coverage. --musicpvm 04:54, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete The article has served its purpose. Time to delete it. I am the original editor on the article - I created it. Delete. --AStanhope 22:51, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
• Weak delete. Her only notability is for the Edwards controversy, and while it was covered in major media, it was pretty much an ephemeral news story that should be a paragraph or so in the John Edwards/2008 Campaign article. --MCB 23:23, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. This issue will continue to be discussed as the campaign goes forward, and it will be helpful to have a Wikipedia reference for the story. Its incomprehensible to me that someone would think this article deserves deletion. —The preceding [[Wikipedia:Sign your posts on talk pages--Kromagon 18:20, 6 March 2007 (UTC) comment was added by Kromagon (talk • contribs) 18:19, 6 March 2007 (UTC).
• Keep. The multiple sources establish notability (even excluding the 2 Ms. Marcotte wrote herself). It may or may not be appropriate to eventually merge this into the 2008 Edwards campaign, but that's an editorial issue for the talk pages of the two articles. -- Black Falcon 08:54, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
• Weak Keep - some evidence of third-party sources to establish notability per WP:BIO. Also bear in mind that if this is deleted, the section on the Marcotte controversy under John Edwards may end up becoming unnecessarily long. Walton ^{Vivat Regina!} 19:43, 7 March 2007 (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.