Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Brodkorb

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. Notability established (non-admin closure) Bryce (talk | contribs) 06:13, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Brodkorb[edit]

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

BLP used as a coatrack about an affair between a state senator and a staffer; this former vice chair of a state political party is not indepedently notable Jonathunder (talk) 21:33, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:16, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:16, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Per nom. WP:POLITICIAN may confer notability on a state-elected official. However, Brodkorb was not elected to his position by the people of Minnesota; he was elected by the Minnesota Republican Party. Thus, Brodkorb would have to meet WP:GNG, which, I don't think he does. He does act as a GOP spokesperson in his position as Communications Director for the party, but that doesn't make him independently notable as he is more or less just a conduit. Finally, his blog may get some press, but it appears to be confined to Minnesota only and is probably insufficient to make him notable. As for the recent events, that is clearly insufficient under WP:BLP1E.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:11, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BusterD (talk) 00:09, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 13:26, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting rationale: This article is a BLP. Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 13:28, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Whether or not he technically passes/fails WP:POLITICIAN, Brodkorb appeared to be a major player among Minnesota conservatives even before the rumors regarding Amy Koch were reported. Per Ann Coulter: "In liberal's imaginary world, lone blogger Michael Brodkorb is more powerful than the New York Times, the Washington Post, the Minneapolis Star Tribune, the St. Paul Pioneer Press, and the entire liberal blogosphere." Per Jay Weiner: "Brodkorb was then Minnesota's most active right-wing blogger."[1] Appears to have been a "powerful" part of the Minnesota GOP: [2][3]. It's silly to use WP:GNG to give a pass to an individual for some obscure record only listed in Guinness World Records, but not someone like this. Location (talk) 03:15, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There seems to be substantial coverage of Brodkorb in respectable sources. He appears to have played a major part in shaping his party's campaigns and messages, so he was more than "just a conduit". Argument that "he wasn't elected, ergo, he fails notability standards by WP:POLITICIAN", would apply with equal force to, say, Lee Atwater or David Gergen or George Stephanopoulos. Ammodramus (talk) 18:46, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep WP:POLITICIAN is irrelevant, since he easily passes GNG - in that he has significant coverage from multiple independent reliable sources [4], several of which I have added to the article. This reference says that he and Koch were "the two most powerful people in the Minnesota Senate." And it is not a case of WP:BLP1E, because he had plenty of coverage before his recent resignation and even before he went to work for the senate - for example, over his role in a landmark libel suit.[5] --MelanieN (talk) 18:50, 12 January 2012 (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.