Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Douglas Emhoff (2nd nomination)

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 speedy keep per WP:SNOW as it already seems clear that there is no consensus to delete. Note also that over 750,000 readers looked at this article yesterday. It's not a good look for there to be a large AfD template at the top of it. (non-admin closure) Andrew🐉(talk) 08:10, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Douglas Emhoff[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

A previous discussion redirected this, and independent of his wife's status his notability does not seem to have changed. DemonDays64 (talk) 18:25, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:26, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:26, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:26, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Apparently notability standards become irrelevant when exciting things happen in the news. Emhoff is not any more notable today than he was last week, when he was just another run-of-the-mill attorney married to a U.S. Senator. Per WP:CRYSTALBALL, he is not automatically notable because his wife might become Vice President. Is it that hard to wait until November? KidAd (talk) 18:29, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: if the article isn't kept, the outcome of this should be redirect, not delete — if she is elected VP, he will likely get a lot more coverage to the point of being notable and thus the content of the article shouldn't be hard to restore. DemonDays64 (talk) 18:51, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: We have a compelling list of might-be-VP spouses: John Zaccaro, Todd Palin, Anne Holton, Elizabeth Edwards, and what they all have in common appears to be that they had independent careers which became notable by virtue of their spouse's campaign. You have a couple of unnotable spouses, e.g, Paul Ryan, Lloyd Bentsen but these appear to be spouses with no independent career KevinCuddeback (talk) 20:03, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Why would we delete a well-written article that provides information to people who are seeking it? People want to know about all aspects of the life of the US vice-presidential Democratic Party nominee, so why would we delete an existing and well-sourced article on her husband? It's common sense to keep the article. The level of notability for this subject is potentially heightened considering the blurring of the political and personal in recent US elections (a development that exists even if we might bemoan it). Note that the article on Karen Pence was created on the day her spouse was announced as a VP nominee (July 15, 2016) and did not endure an AfD nomination. Surely we can have room for this article when we have articles on people and places with far less claim to notability. Moncrief (talk) 19:00, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: It's called notability. This guy is not notable on his own. Therefore, it should be redirected to Kamala Harris.

Comment: Please sign your comments. I'm aware of what notability is. In terms of the level of public awareness and exposure, being the spouse of a major-party US vice-presidential nominee is notable. Minds can differ on whether that is true, but I certainly think it is; hence my vote. Moncrief (talk) 19:17, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. *Obviously* the news changes his notability. Just look at the number of reliable sources that have published articles about him in the last 48 hours. Notability isn't a reward Wikipedians hand out for achievements, it's a reflection of how he's viewed by independent, reliable sources. Independent reliable sources have published a bunch of articles about him, so they consider him notable, which means he is notable. [[[User:Binarybits|Binarybits]] (talk) 19:10, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect to Kamala Harris this guy is not notable on his own.-Splinemath (talk) 19:13, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I think we need a way to include perspectives of people outside ourselves. I suggest Google Trends, which shows that "Kamala Harris Husband" is roughly equal in searches to "Douglas Emhoff" [1] suggesting that people view him as independently namable and notable.KevinCuddeback (talk) 20:09, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep clearly meets notability with significant coverage in reliable sources such as major American news outlets.--Prisencolin (talk) 19:16, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If John Zaccaro and Todd Palin have entries, Douglas Emhoff is every bit as notable, and will be scrutinized as a VP-Candidate Spouse for *exactly* the same reasons that John Zaccaro and Todd Palin were and ended up fully worthy of their entries KevinCuddeback (talk) 19:45, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. KidAd (talk) 22:11, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Douglas Emhoff easily fits the notability requirements for Wikipedia since he has "received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject." See Wikipedia:Notability (people). These secondary sources cited in the article include newspapers, magazines, and news websites.Ungathering (talk) 02:57, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Ungathering (talk • contribs) 19:56, August 12, 2020 (UTC)

Comment: Please sign your posts. You can do so by adding four tildes (~ x4) after your comment. Moncrief (talk) 19:59, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I'm not convinced that this nomination is entirely neutral, as it was conveniently nominated the day after his wife was chosen as VP pick for one of the candidates for president; before there was time for the (inevitable) forthcoming coverage on Emhoff. Nevertheless, he in fact does meet notability criteria due to sigcov in multiple reliable sources. Meets GNG and BASIC. Netherzone (talk) 20:19, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Clearly notable now his wife is running as VP. This is Paul (talk) 21:15, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for all of the reasons listed above. And because I came here to find out more about him! And why is the AfD given as "Frank Underwood" on the page? I fixed it. --WiseWoman (talk) 22:33, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The "Frank Underwood" in the article was simple vandalism. Thanks for fixing it. TJRC (talk) 22:52, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There's a great deal of public interest in the man who is married to a candidate for Vice-President of the United States of America. I and others are coming here to find out more about him. The suggestion for deletion seems like political trolling, which is against Wikipedia rules. --BraverWoman (talk) 22:33, 12 August 2020 (UTC)Keep. ≈ Ebraver99 (talk) 23:02, 12 August 2020 (UTC).[reply]
Keep There is enough coverage of him in reliable sources to meet WP:GNG. Edwardx (talk) 23:54, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as per previous consensus, and not much has changed since, other than Emhoff is now the spouse of a candidate for a position. I'm not seeing any compelling arguments on the Keep side here, from a strong presence of WP:OTHERSTUFF, 'I came here to find this' (which isn't an argument against deletion in any sense), assuming bad faith and assuming notability due to coverage over the last 24 hours, which can definitely fall to WP:RECENTISM. Emhoff's notability seems to be inherited from his wife being the presumptive VP candidate - I feel like it's a case that we need to wait til November to see if he becomes the Second Lady (or whatever the official term is) until we can recreate this page, as per WP:CRYSTALBALL given his notability entirely hinges on a future event, otherwise he's just another unnotable Senate Spouse. ser! (let's discuss it). 00:04, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Karen Pence (Mrs. Mike Pence) was an elementary school teacher, but she has had a Wikipedia article since 15 July 2016 (about 4 months before the November 2016 election that elected Mike Pence Vice President). What's good for the gander is good for the goose. Mksword (talk) 00:27, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: (again) — a lot of these arguments contradict WP:INVALIDBIO; a person is not notable solely because of their relationship to a notable person. He needs to have significant coverage distinguishing him as notable. DemonDays64 (talk) 00:33, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WP:INVALIDBIO says that a relationship doesn't confer notability "unless significant coverage can be found" on the subject. There's already been numerous profiles of him written published in reliable sources since Kamala was chosen and we can expect plenty more in the coming months. Binarybits (talk) 02:44, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep He is the spouse of the democratic vice presidential nominee and could potentially be the 1st second gentleman in US history. This page is notable enough. Within 24 hours, his wikipedia page has received 100,000 views alone. Yeungkahchun (talk) 01:09, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This seems a no brainer. Even if there wasn't sufficient coverage now, wait 48 hours and there will be so what's the point? PAVA11 (talk) 02:34, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- Douglas may become the first Second Gentleman of the United States. While the page has a great amount of room for expansion, it should not be deleted. PickleG13 (talk) 02:52, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Why would you delete this? He has received significant news coverage and clearly meets WP:GNG. I-82-I | TALK 02:57, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep At this point meets WP:GNG. The selection of Kamala Harris has placed the subject in the public eye. --Enos733 (talk) 03:55, 13 August 2020 (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.