Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Laureen Harper

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. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 01:44, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Laureen Harper

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not sure why there is an article on this person. Other than her marriage to Stephen Harper she meets none of the standard WP:Notability requirements. Recommend Delete or Redirect to the Stephen Harper article. Suttungr (talk) 01:09, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 01:20, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Spouses of the Prime Ministers of Canada are a class of topic for which we do have articles about every single one who has ever existed, with not a single solitary exception over the entire time since 1867, for exactly the same reasons that we have articles about every First Lady of the United States and every Second Lady of the United States, every First Spouse of the Philippines, most Spouses of Prime Ministers of the United Kingdom (the difficulty of digging into 200-400 year old sources, not any inherent non-notability, being the only reason they don't all already have articles), and literally hundreds upon hundreds of other Category:Spouses of national leaders. Whether you agree with it or not, spouses of national leaders are a notable topic that readers do want information about, because they do serve in a public, ceremonial and symbolic role in their own right — and for that very reason, "First Ladydom" is explicitly written right into WP:NOTINHERITED as being not subject to the usual prohibitions on "inherited notability". So the question that needs to be answered here isn't what would make her notable enough for an article, but rather what would make her uniquely non-notable among an otherwise notable class of topic, such that she would become the only wife of a Canadian Prime Minister in all of Canadian history ever to not qualify for an article. Keep. Bearcat (talk) 02:44, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per Bearcat's reasoning, which is apparently ground that has been covered before. On my own I would have said Keep it as a proper place to cover her involvement in causes and charities, to allow very brief mentions elsewhere. It allows editors of other articles to mention her appearance, say, but avoid having to footnote stuff that is documented in this article. --do ncr am 20:24, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as per Bearcat.E.M.Gregory (talk) 10:08, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:46, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, obviously. Unless we plan on deleting the article on Michelle Obama. -- Earl Andrew - talk 15:11, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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.