Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marjorie Dannenfelser

Add links
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 keep. Courcelles 22:28, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Marjorie Dannenfelser

[edit]
Marjorie Dannenfelser (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not appear to be actually independently notable, outside of her position. Her group may be notable, but she does not appear to be. Herp Derp (talk) 19:48, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 21:40, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect. The WaPo profile is just one source, meaning that it doesn't meet the requirement for multiple sources; when talking about this some time ago, I admit I kind of just assumed there would be others, but I can't find anything else that meets the WP:SIGCOV requirement. All the hits just seem to be quoting her in her capacity as head of SBA List, rather than providing information about her. (There are a couple of audio/video sources I can't view at the moment due to some technological hiccups, so if anyone can summarize the stuff on Youtube for me and tell me if it's actually about Dannenfelser or just about SBA List or general politics, I may be able to change my vote.) Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 23:24, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Can you point to the requirement for multiple sourcing, rather than just significant sourcing? Thanks.--Epeefleche (talk) 23:36, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
WP:BIO. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 23:46, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
On the one hand, I'm not a fan of that aspect of the guideline. On the other hand, it does indeed appear to call for multiple refs. Input from "keepers" on this specific point would be helpful.--Epeefleche (talk) 03:00, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yup. Also, as I said in my comment above, I'm not in a position right now to look at the Youtube hits, but if they are about Dannenfelser herself and not about SBA List/abortion/politics, I will be open to changing my vote, "multiple" being satisfied. Any keep voters want to help me out? Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:08, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know if it's what you're looking for, but she has written many op-eds in publications such as Politico, Fox News, Washington Examiner, etc. It's very difficult to find in Google something that focuses more on her than the organization as the WaPo profile did, simply because the search engine turns up everything, but I'll keep looking if that's what you're talking about. The significant coverage requirement, at least, is fulfilled by the profile. NYyankees51 (talk) 04:43, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Material written by the subject is never admissible for purposes of attesting notability. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 05:04, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If you're questioning her notability, it's established by the WaPo profile. NYyankees51 (talk) 19:32, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am questioning her notability, since WP:BIO requires multiple sources of significant coverage, not just one. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:07, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, hundreds of articles have covered her opinions and statements, plus the extensive profile. I don't think we need a second profile to establish notability. NYyankees51 (talk) 21:10, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hundreds of articles have quoted her briefly in her capacity as head of SBA List, which, as you know, already has an article. We do actually need more material that is coverage of her, not of her organization. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:15, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I simply don't think we do because the Washington Post profile was so extensive. I'll let other editors decide. NYyankees51 (talk) 21:40, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:24, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Dannenefelser is the head of a major organization that is very important in American politics. Being head of a major organization makes someone notable. Would you advocate we delete the article on the head of Planned Parenthood?John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:40, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If you think it should be deleted, then nominate it and we will see what people think. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 02:06, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Allow me to remind Roscelese that the notability guideline for people says "If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability". It seems that everyone here agrees that the Washington Post source is significant, in depth coverage. I see additional coverage by "multiple independent sources" at ABC News, the New York Times, National Public Radio, the Boston Globe, MSNBC, the Washington Times, the Sacramento Bee, the Spokesman-Review in Spokane, the Seattle Post-Intelligencer, and The Telegraph in the United Kingdom. This repeated coverage in a broad range of large, mainstream media outlets convinces me that she is notable. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 03:06, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I, on the other hand, see a bunch of trivial mentions in which she is quoted as the head of a prominent anti-abortion organization which already has an article of its own (which is why I suggested redirecting rather than deleting). What do the sources you linked tell us about Dannenfelser besides that she is the head of SBA List? Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:50, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That's the point, we don't need a second profile to demonstrate notability. I don't know what you think a second profile would do to make her more notable. NYyankees51 (talk) 19:10, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Again, WP:BIO, significant coverage in multiple sources. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 02:43, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep/Userfy The Washington Post article in combination with non-substantial coverage in multiple sources passes WP:BASIC. – Lionel (talk) 07:20, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - If userfying is being considered, as was suggested above, I submit that it might be better to move this article to the Conservatism Incubator, which is essentially the same as the userfy option, except it's in a central area, in the project namespace. The advantages of incubation over userfication are that more eyes will see the article, and that it won't sit there indefinitely out of sight if no improvement occurs. Thanks for your consideration. – Lionel (talk) 07:34, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That seems like a reasonable suggestion.--Epeefleche (talk) 19:18, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Roscelese asked above, "What do the sources you linked tell us about Dannenfelser besides that she is the head of SBA List?" That's a good question. Actually, those sources linked above, and many similar ones, tell us far more than just that she is head of the SBA List.
Here Newsweek profiled her as one of 10 "Faces of the Christian Right", and we learn that she was raised an Episcopalian and once was a moderate pro-choice Republican, before she "about faced in college" becoming a pro-life Catholic, and that she "has the ear" of Sarah Palin. Here and here, we learn that she "co-founded the Team Sarah social networking Web site popular with Palin supporters", also described in 2009 as "a Facebook-like social networking Web site of about 70,000 Palin supporters nationwide".
Here, we learn that she is a "a former staff director of the Congressional Pro-Life caucus". Here, we learn that she cooperates with the National Organization for Marriage, and that while participating in a conference call with conservatives around the country from a room at a Days Inn, "A small picture of Jesus and the Virgin Mary rested on top of the television, while the Pittsburgh Steelers game played with the volume muted."
Here, we learn that she "created "The Pro-Life Presidential Leadership Pledge", which has become an issue separating Republican presidential primary candidates signing the pledge from those declining to sign. Here, we learn that she gave a “State of the Unborn” speech the day before Obama's 2011 State of the Union speech, and plans it as an annual event. Here we learn that she has "paid tribute to the feminist movement of the 70s and 80s for breaking down barriers that conservative women have taken much longer to traverse."
We learn a lot about her personal political opinions, such as here, where she talks about a "Republican Party apparatus that is wildly out of touch with its base". Here she criticizes John Boehner for what she sees as his failure to cut funding to Planned Parenthood. Although a few TV interviews don't establish notability, the fact that she has been interviewed many times by all three U. S. national political networks, namely CNN, MSNBC and Fox News, is an indication of notability. She is repeatedly quoted speaking about her own views in a wide range of reliable sources, rather than just operating as a spokesperson for the SBA list. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 06:40, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Those mentions that aren't entirely trivial (the Pittsburgh Steelers, indeed) are, again, talking about "head of SBA List," not "Marjorie Dannenfelser." Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 06:52, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The New York Times added some "local color", but the relevant fact is the alliance with another group on the right. How about the other three organizations the sources mentioned that she's been involved with? Cullen328 Let's discuss it 07:05, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The coverage in the Juneau Empire doesn't even mention the SBA List. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 07:09, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Where do you get three? Team Sarah is an SBA List project (ie. yes, the Juneau Empire does mention SBA List), and the only other one I count is the CPLC (which is evidently not notable enough to sustain an article), staff director of which would probably not be a position that conferred notability anyway. You're grasping at straws. Any second article or other news piece of reasonable length (ie. not a photo with a caption) that's about Dannenfelser, rather than being about SBA List or abortion politics and quoting Dannenfelser once or twice, would be sufficient, but no one has been able to produce that. It's not too much to ask that sources actually be about the subject. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 07:18, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The third was her alliance with the National Organization for Marriage. Fox News here describes her as a "GOP strategist" without mentioning the SBA List. Both Mother Jones here and McClatchy News here quote her as a representative of Team Sarah, and neither mentions the SBA List. The groups may be closely related but they are described as separate groups by reliable sources, and Team Sarah is often described independently without any mention of SBA List. "If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability". You can call it grasping at straws if you wish, but that is exactly what our guideline allows in cases like this. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 07:31, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
She isn't involved with NOM though, it's just that her organization as well as NOM worked together trying to defeat a candidate. And I'm not sure what your goal is in pointing out that not every source that mentions Team Sarah says that it's a project of SBA List - Team Sarah's own website is perfectly clear about this. Likewise, your quoting the guideline on allowing insubstantial coverage is odd to me, since that same guideline specifically states that trivial coverage is insufficient and that an example of trivial coverage is "X said..." Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:37, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Newsweek coverage I linked to above is five sentences long, and in my opinion, is significant coverage. That's not trivial "X said..." coverage and doesn't even quote her at all. Her electoral alliance with NOM is a biographical fact mentioned by the New York Times. The bottom line is that I think the coverage furnished by other editors and by me demonstrates that she is notable, while you disagree. That's all well and good. It would also be good to hear what other editors have to say. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 20:05, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. —Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 01:41, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note that the Daily Beast Newsweek profile is demonstrably wrong in at least one important regard. It says "Today, she heads the Susan B. Anthony List, which she founded out of her house in 1991." Actually, Dannenfelser was hired in 1993 by the founder Rachel MacNair and the executive board members of the early Susan B. Anthony List. The group was first conceived in 1992 and was initiated in February 1993 with FEC paperwork to make it a PAC, with Rachel MacNair filing the papers and listing her own office in Kansas City as the home base. Even the SBA List website used to say Rachel MacNair was the founder but that practice was soon stopped, likely because peacenik MacNair is embarrassingly leftist in her beliefs. Dannenfelser consistently eliminates MacNair as founder in delivering the history of the group, saying she herself was founder (or co-founder with Jane Abraham), and this profile is another example of a write-up that is uncritical, absent of fact-checking, and therefore unreliable—a shameful showing by Newsweek. Any source which says Dannenfelser is the founder of the SBA List is unreliable, which makes even the WaPo piece stumble. That one says, "In 1991, she ...started running an antiabortion women's organization out of her home. She called it the Susan B. Anthony List..." Actually, MacNair named the Susan B. Anthony List herself, in 1992 when it was still forming. ("Commentary". Fidelity. 12. Wanderer Forum Foundation: 24. 1992. To counter the influx of prochoice women who have just entered Congress, Rachel MacNair, head of Feminists for Life, has formed a political action committee ... To the consternation of feminist prochoicers, she's named it the Susan B. Anthony List.) To its credit, the WaPo piece does ask various other people to comment about Dannenfelser, including some who disagree with her, but its fact checking was inadequate. Binksternet (talk) 14:45, 25 August 2011 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Marjorie_Dannenfelser&oldid=1072514680"