Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Katherine Prudhomme

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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 Delete. A classic case of someone who's on the way to possible notability, but isn't there yet. A few WP:RS based on a couple of incidents doesn't quite cut it, really. Very little coverage outside these minor incidents. No problem with re-creation if she manages to increase her claims of notability. ELIMINATORJR 11:24, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Katherine Prudhomme

Katherine Prudhomme (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Non-notable. In a nutshell: she ranted at the Clintons, appeared on "many syndicated political talk shows", has some opinions about local and national politics, and heckled Giuliani (in a state where candidates spend a lot of time). Also, no references. She might become notable if her role grew and she garnered more press attention, but not yet. Biruitorul 22:41, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. Dahn 22:54, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete almost no notability so far. With respect to her role with the Clinton, this article might be thought of as apparently written to support the Juanita Broaddrick article, which is in need of attention with respect to BLP. with respect to Guiliani, it's his answer not her qy which is significant. DGG (talk) 22:57, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep As a political activist she has a knack for getting in the news. Going forward, I expect to see her cause more national headlines. Jmegill 17:49, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
    • Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Biruitorul 21:49, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
      • If I see someone's name in the news, I like to get a handle on the person. It is useful to me to have the article. It is a single resource which gives an idea of her history. How would I check up on a commentator's assertion that Prudhomme was a plant? I could google a whole bunch or go to the wiki article. She has held several positions in the local politics. I think that meets minimal requirements. Jmegill 05:40, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
        • First, about the fact that she is a local politician: her only elected governmental position is Library Trustee, which falls well short of notability guidelines. See WP:BIO: "a politician who has received 'significant press coverage' has been written about, in depth, independently in multiple news feature articles, by journalists", and that is definitely not the case yet. Second, see here. I suppose we have very different mentalities, but I don't believe articles should be kept simply because they are "useful to me" and help me "get a handle" on someone in the news. For that, there's Google, and from there, the Union Leader and various other local news outlets. How would you check if she were a plant? Not my concern: my concern is with creating a professional encyclopedia with high standards. Prudhomme's article is an impediment to that, as it a) elevates a very marginal figure to encyclopedic stature, and b) manifests the pervasive disease of recentism, due to which some six dozen articles exist about the 2008 election but just four (that I can see) dealing with the vastly more important election of 1860. The case for yet another article on a present-day nonentity (and, let's face it, she is essentially that) is weak indeed. Biruitorul 06:11, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep She is getting in the news now. She is a darling of the media without any real substance or portfolio, a professional gadfly, just like Cindy Sheehan. Even though, just like Sheehan, she does not have any real substance or portfolio (no political office, no corporate gig, no celebrity status, etc.), she does have the media attention, which means she has a platform without portfolio.--Getaway 18:05, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
    • Could you please cite for this claim? I see two mentions in local papers and a brief item in USA Today. I'm not seeing the subject having "been written about, in depth, independently in multiple news feature articles, by journalists". Biruitorul 21:44, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
Ah, but all these sources refer primarily to the Giuliani incident, with a couple giving some rather cursory background on her. That fails the "in depth" requirement of WP:BIO. Also, given that the mentions all sound similar, it seems likely they all originated from an AP press release. If she makes a few more news cycles in more substantive form, maybe. But merely asking a question of a candidate (essentially the reason she received coverage) does not generate encyclopedic notability. Biruitorul 01:50, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
I left out at least twenty articles from much smaller newspapers (and, no, I am not going to spend the time to list every single article out there, I provided some citations and if you need more information for your decision then you need to track it down), mostly newspapers in the New England region who DO go into great depth about her point of view. Also, I specifically listed the name of the actual reporter that wrote the articles in these newspapers that have national followings for the specific reason that I believed, accurately of course, that you would reply that each of these articles are only repeating Associated Press work. Now, in the London example, clearly, the London paper is repeating word for word the AP article. However, in the KC Star and the others there was an individual reporter from the paper covering the story. Therefore, your argument that these national newspapers were merely parroting the AP story is inaccurate. I also did not take the time to list all of the articles that either talked about her or interviewed her during the Brodderick scandal. The amount of information out there concerning her is more than enough to meet the demands of notability. Once again, the article should not be deleted and I argue for KEEP.--Getaway 14:02, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
Also, it is an Associated Press article, not press release.--Getaway 15:31, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
Yes, article; I stand corrected. However: just because the KC Star happens to have Chrostowski's byline on it doesn't mean he was anywhere near NH recently. He gives no more information than the raw AP news feed did, as far as I can see. She may have been covered during Broaddrick, but the onus is on the keep voters to show that (preferably by inserting citations into the article). Also, note that her entry has drawn ridicule for Wikipedia from a man who apparently is rather influential in his sphere. I still don't see the notability, and retain my "delete" stance. Biruitorul 23:00, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
Look, you, Biruitorul, obviously have a lot invested in making sure that this article is deleted. Fine. However, your criticism are over the top. For example, You quoted the Opinion Journal of the Wall Street Journal to indicate that Prudhomme has no notability. That is rich. You quote most read newspaper in the U.S. to show that she has no notability, but the article you quote mentions her in the article. Talk about spin. This Lanny Davis territory. Soon you will have me believing that I should be deleting the article myself. Also, in the article that you quote you twist the guys words around so much that you make the claim that he is making fun of the Wikipedia article on Prudhomme, but when in fact, when you actually read the article, he is making fun of the Associated Press reporter for not pointing out that Prudhomme IS a political gadfly and it took a bunch of rank amateurs like us to point out Prudhomme's background. He stated specifically that he wished the AP reporter has pointed out Prudhomme's background just like the Wikipedia article did. You clearly attempted to spin that article to your favor, but I actually read it and saw that you were engaging POV spin. KEEP per the comments of the international distributed and known Wall Street Journal reporter.--Getaway 14:36, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
Hey, I am Lanny Davis! Seriously, though: we can't tell all that Taranto is implying, given an apparent tendency to use irony, but from what I can infer (ie, my own spin): a) "quite an activist" is a bit tongue-in-cheek, given her 59 Google hits (as compared with 1.76 million for Cindy Sheehan) and b) "nonauthoritative user-written online encyclopedia" is shorthand for saying "She's even on Wikipedia! That silly "encyclopedia" where anyone can write anything he wants and no one fact-checks!" In other words, it's creating yet more ridicule for us. Biruitorul 21:52, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. Prudhomme is more known and more recorded that 97% of the people out there. The least she can get is a damn wikipedia page. What difference is it to you? She made her mark on the conservative politcal activist scene. Leave the page up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.117.28.58 (talk • contribs) 01:10, 23 August 2007
    • It does make a difference for me, as I'm working to build a serious encyclopedia. No one is automatically entitled to a "damn" Wikipedia page, and as I believe she fails WP:BIO, I urge that her entry be deleted. Biruitorul 01:50, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per the nominator, this person is simply not notable. Burntsauce 17:22, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete non-notable. Very simple - self-promotion for a political cause does not rise to notability. MarkinBoston 22:51, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. YOU believe she fails, biruitorul, however the numerous FOX News Television shows and Radio programs she appears on DON'T think she fails. She has appeared in the Daily News (page 3), The New York Post, among many other credible papers. She was quoted in the Daily News as "famous" and was commented on by the likes of George Stephanopolous. When low rank comedians and pages on Vampires are getting Wikipedia pages, biruitorul, a woman whose made a mark on the political landscape (notably Rudy Giuliani's campaign, the Juanita Broadrrick issue), deserves the page. Look at how many hits she gets on the internet. MANY websites and articles have used her wikipedia page as a source for information. It is noticed and used. I can't say so for many other wikipedia pages you allow to slip through the cracks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.117.28.58 (talk • contribs) 01:10, 23 August 2007 Biruitorul 01:04, 24 August 2007 (UTC) Note: double voter.
    • Please provide appropriate citations. Merely referring to "page 3" of the Daily News, for instance, is no good, as that newspaper has had approximately 32,000 "page threes" since it first appeared in 1919. Claims that she's appeared "numerous" (care to be more specific?) times of FOX and "radio" also seems rather vague. Her "mark" on Broaddrick and especially Giuliani is ephemeral at best - good for one single news cycle, and low-grade at that. A Wikipedia page being used by "MANY" sites is not evidence of notability; notability works in the reverse fashion - we find evidence of notability and then create the article, without regard to how often that gets cited. I wish many other pages were deleted, but accusing me of responsibility for them is silly. One man can only do so much, and I've nominated a fair amount of pages for deletion. This one happened to catch my attention, so it too has been placed on the chopping block. May the axe soon fall and end its unworthy existence. Biruitorul 01:12, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. I saved the newspaper article on Prudhomme and If you provide me with an email address, I'll be more than glad to send you the copy (the same article that called her "famous") as an attachment. Furthermore, while your quick Google search of the Daily News' history is minimally impressive at best, it takes no internet nerd to know that to influence the campaign of one of the primary candidates for the Republican Party as Prudhomme successfully did, takes alot of political accessibility. For George Stephanopolous to comment on her, takes alot of notability. You want proof? She appeared on "The O'Reilly Factor" and "Hannity and Colmes" on FOX News for her Broaddrick protest, and again appeared on "Hannity and Colmes" for her Giuliani question as well as on Sean Hannity's radio program. Call up Sean Hannity if you want affirmation. Let's talk about your claims that Prudhomme's page is an example of recentism, shall we? Biruitorul, "recentism" is a relative term. The Phil Spector case is recentism. The OJ Simpson trial was recentism back in the 90's, McCarthyism was recentism. However those pages are righteously maintained on wikipedia because they are notable moments of the past. So your claims of "recentism" aren't as much about ephemeral problems, as much as they are about notability problems worth remembrance on this encyclopedia. And for that concern, see the first half of this comment. But pardon me, I should get back to jousting lest the axe fall on me. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.117.28.58 (talk) 03:18, August 24, 2007 (UTC)
No, you don't need to e-mail me; just work on improving the article itself in order to try and establish notability. Oh, come on: she asked him a question in one of the two most important primary states, where any partisan hack (or non-hack, for that matter) is within shouting distance of a candidate for about 18 months before the primary. Not exactly an "influence" on his campaign, especially because her amazing question dealt with an issue of very little substance (ie, no foreign or domestic policy was involved). I'm sure Stephanopoulos has commented on a lot of people in his career. Not every guest of Hannity/Colmes/O'Reilly deserves a page. Yes, I know that taken together these add up a little, but really, it's still pretty thin.
I'm not saying that no current events belong on Wikipedia (though it would be nice to have, say, a 6-month delay on new news stories getting on here), but there is a great imbalance in coverage of new vs. even slightly older events, and keeping Prudhomme's biography only adds to that. The fact is, she's still a trifling gadfly, and until her standing really takes a jump, we'd do best to take her off here. Biruitorul 04:04, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. How much more can be improved? Her appearances in the media, her confrontation with our former Vice President Al Gore, our former first lady and New York City's former mayor are all copiously mentioned on her page. I can't establish notability; only Prudhomme can do that and she certainly did. Look, the foundation of your argument is that she doesn't fit the standards of an encyclopedia because she's not important enough to be on the same "reputable" encyclopedia that has a page for Billy Mays, a man who sells cleaning products. And mind you, the reputation of Wikipedia can't be that great because it is not allowed by any high school teachers or college professors as citable resources. So, you're defending the status of an encyclopedia that can't be used or cited by the majority of researchers: students! How noble can your cause be? And, regardless, she is notable! Cleary she's established some importance or else we wouldn't be debating now and the Wikipedia Gods would have eradicated the page already. You said, also, biruitorul, that Prudhomme's question dealt with "an issue of very little substance" because no "foreign or domestic policy was involved." Now, may I remind you, friend, that Monica Lewinsky was not a foreign or domestic problem, but personal. Prudhomme hit upon an important problem in Rudy's campagin: his turbulent personal life. Any voter will say that the personal issues of a candidate are important in their decision of who to vote for--you and I both know that. And it was an important breakthrough in Rudy's campaign or else it wouldn't have made headlines all over the country. —Preceding unsigned comment added by RIPKrt (talk • contribs) 04:29, August 24, 2007 (UTC) (Assuming RIPKrt and 69.117.28.58 are the same) -- Note: quadruple voter.
Well, at some point it comes down to differing interpretations of the notability guidelines (and by the way, the Mays article too should probably go, and I'd likely vote for deletion if you nominated it): I guess I set the bar higher than you. Improvement could come in the form of more references (the three footnotes only cover the Giuliani incident). I'm sure not everyone has banned Wikipedia as a source. Lewinsky was more than personal: Clinton was accused of lying under oath in Federal court. Of course personal issues are important, but they can adequately be covered in Giuliani's article - we don't need an extra article on one individual who highlighted those troubles. Finally, I dispute the "breakthrough" nature of the Giuliani incident for two reasons. One, it was a slow news day and the exchange has blown over already. Two, it didn't make "headlines" (page 1) but instead was buried somewhere inside. In sum: I'm not saying she's a complete and utter nobody, but she's close enough that we need not create further clutter. But like I've said, I don't expect any sudden change of heart from either of us. Biruitorul 05:34, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
  • I agree with you on one statement you made: that we're not going to change our minds. I beg your pardon, biruitorul, as I don't believe you set the bar higher than me, but merely that you have no realistic concept of what the "bar" is. I have a utilitarian viewpoint with regards to a free internet encyclopedia that has minimal credibility at best in academic circles. Furthermore, Prudhomme is a political activist, no matter how you want to put it. She is quite capable of being mentioned in a college essay, say on "first amendment rights with regards to presidential confrontation" or "the personal lives of politicians" or "presidential sex scandals", etc. The list can go on and on. If I were still in college and I had a paper on one of those issues, Prudhomme and her audacity in the political landscape would be a key point to my essay. It's only a shame that very few colleges and high schools (certainly none that my friends and I were associated with) permit Wikipedia as a valid source. In my high school or college, I'd fail immediately if my profressor saw Wikipedia as a source. Why? Because anyone can edit it? Why? Because it serves the people on the internet for their curiousities... It's not Oxford and it never will be, and while I don't advocate an attitude of non-improvement or lower standards because of this incontrovertible fact that Wikipedia is not highly regarded but ubiquitous for internet folk looking for quick info that is most likely true, I feel that Prudhomme and her activism stretch far enough into the definition of what's suitable for Wikipedia and it's constituency. And that, my friend, aint and never will be "clutter." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.117.28.58 (talk) 14:03, August 24, 2007 (UTC)
After well over a year registered on Wikipedia (4 total years registered + unregistered), I have a pretty good sense of what should or should not be here, and in this case, my radar says, quite clearly, "delete", for all the reasons I've outlined. It is indeed a shame more schools don't allow it, especially with all the high-quality articles on Wikipedia (of which this isn't one). However, I look at things differently: improvement through deletion rather than throwing up our hands, saying we'll never be reliable, and allowing all manner of trivia on here. I'm not an out-and-out deletionist, but I do tend in that direction. Biruitorul 21:52, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep: She has multiple reliable secondary sources about her so she meets WP:BIO. A comment: I don't think its appropriate for editors to bold the word "Keep" or "Delete" in multiple comments. After you've voted, comment but don't vote again.--Dcooper 15:07, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. I was inclined to vote delete when I read the intro but by the time I finished the article I changed my mind. Could use some trimming but she's popped up in the news enough to justify this. Gamaliel (Angry Mastodon! Run!) 17:27, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Yeah I'm sorry, that was me who has been voting more than once. I didn't know I was voting. I thought that you have to start a comment with your "keep" or "delete" to show what side you're on. Sorry! Won't do it again! :-) But anyway, Biruitorul, see my comment above starting with "I agree with you on one statement..." which is a response to your last statement. Keep Prudhomme's page. For persuasion, see my debate with biruitorul above to make up your own minds. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.117.28.58 (talk) 17:49, August 24, 2007 (UTC)
It's OK - I didn't think you were acting maliciously. Biruitorul 21:52, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
  • So, Biruitorul, where do we go from here. We've both made our points and we are both immune to changing our minds. Do we leave this page up and wait for the Wikipedia Gods? Do we let people keep voting? Who's the arbiter of this page's fate? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Savorist (talk • contribs) 04:14, August 26, 2007 (UTC)
    • Are Savorist, RIPKrt and 69.117.28.58 the same person? You normally shouldn't have more than one account. Anyway, quite soon, an administrator should be coming by and making a decision based on this discussion - keep, no consensus (ie, keep) or delete. I predict "no consensus" will be the result, so the page will stay, for now. Biruitorul 16:21, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete as non-notable. Not every Clinton-hater needs a Wikipedia article.  MortonDevonshire  Yo  · 17:11, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete I don't see that notability has been sufficiently established. Many people dislike the Clintons, I don't see why this one is more notable than the rest. Pablo Talk | Contributions 18:54, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Undecided Im not sure yet. I lean to delete. I will read more and then come back to change my vote to 100% keep or 100% delete, surely. •smedleyΔbutler• 23:53, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep The question of whether or not she is a crank is not germaine. What is significant is that she has on multiple occasions garnered significant public attention for her allegations against politicians or her significant questions. She has gained significant access to the media, e.g., appearances on the Sean Hannity radio show. In this context, her public statements have had a major effect on how the media treat certain politicians. In summation, she is, then, a significant person. Dogru144 05:17, 27 August 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.