Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 01:59, 21 July 2011

Marcus Bachmann

Marcus Bachmann (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

I've never been accused of beating around the bush, so let me say that what we have here is crystal-clearly following in the footsteps of Campaign for "santorum" neologism; editors are creating WP:BLP articles on marginally-notable people that they don't like, so that said article will become a platform from which to criticize the subject. Not a single thing this man has done on his own meets our general notability guideline. He is the spouse of a current presidential candidate. He is the head of a religious clinic that attracted some press for offering conversion therapy. If the only things you can say about a person is that a) they have a famous spouse, and b) there are ideological outcries over a service that his organization offers, then that doesn't comes within a mile of the WP:GNG. Notability is WP:NOTINHERITED. BLPs cannot be allowed to serve as a coatrack for perceived anti-gay religious groups. Tarc (talk) 23:14, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

• Keep - I disagree with Tarc's analysis. COI: I wrote this stub. The article is heavily sourced to Marcus Bachmann-specific mainstream media stories, for which there are many, meeting WP:V. The lack of a Marcus article causes WP:WEIGHT issues on wp:Michele Bachmann, particularly in regards to his Christian counseling clinic, and his family's farm. Michele's long article has enough Michele-related controversy that lumping in Marcus-related issues is not optimal. Michele Bachmann's strong campaign has made him the focus of attention as a possible First Gentleman--only increasing--which is why in the spirit of Misplaced Pages:Misplaced Pages is comprehensive we have a strong interest to explain to our readers this subject neutrally, without speculation. On the article's first day of creation it had 2,000 views, showing this need exists; I imagine today's hits will be much higher. --David Shankbone 00:23, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
• Delete Per Tarc. Yes, Tarc, you may frame this. :-) Jclemens (talk) 00:30, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
  • To augment my argument, let me quote the article itself: "During the early days of his wife's campaign for the 2012 Republican Presidential nomination, Bachmann stayed out of the spotlight." Hmm... WP:WIALPI? Check. WP:BLP1E? Probably. Jclemens (talk) 14:29, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
• Keep per David Shankbone. Articles on spouses of presidential candidates are pretty standard here. We've even got one on the wife of novelty candidate Dennis Kucinich, and Bachmann's gotten a lot more support and attention than he. Gamaliel (talk) 00:44, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
• Comment - These may be useful links for those who wonder where this article is headed: Dan Savage July 12 2011 podcast, Dan Savage blog post entitled "Marcus Bachmann's Big Gay Problem", Slate article entitled "Dan Savage:Bully", and Slate article entitled "Read My Lisp". Delicious carbuncle (talk) 00:45, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

DC, I think it's good that you found more mainstream media sources that address the subject in his own right, but I think that it's important that we avoid WP:SPECULATION and stick to verifiable facts for a BLP. --David Shankbone 01:14, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree. I'm glad we have this opportunity to work together again. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 03:02, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

So 'where this article is heading' is an attack on the subject's personal mannerisms and a series of evidence-free sneers that he's lying about his sexual orientation? Wonderful. Hope everyone who is voting 'keep' realizes what it is they are assisting. →StaniStani  06:23, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

• Speedy Keep: Flawed nomination. The subject has received mainstream media coverage, which means that he surpasses the Notability criteria. Spouses of major presidential candidates do normally get their own wikipedia articles in cases where they are extensively covered by the media: See Hadassah Lieberman, Kitty Dukakis, Todd Palin, Cindy McCain, etc. Victor Victoria (talk) 00:49, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

• All these people listed actually won their parties nomination for president or vice-president. But we don't have an article on, say, Conrad Chisholm, just because his wife ran for her party's nomination. Rlendog (talk) 19:08, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Good observation. Add Elizabeth Kucinich to the above list. Dennis did not win the nomination in either 2004 or 2008, yet she has a Misplaced Pages page because she has received media attention. Her article survived 3 AfD's. Victor Victoria (talk) 22:07, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

How could I forget Callista Gingrich? Shame on me!! Victor Victoria (talk) 22:24, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

• Keep Notablity might not be inherited, but Bachmann certainly has been the subject of significant coverage in reliable sourcesSt8fan (talk) 00:55, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
• Comment. The subject will continue to be in the public spotlight so long as his wife is running for US president. I'm inclined to think that there hasn't been sufficient coverage yet to make meet the notability standard, but I strongly suspect that there will be more coverage in the near future and that it would put the article over the threshold. We could delete it now and recreate it in a week or a month, but I don't see how anyone benefits from exercise. So I suggest keeping the article now and thinking about deletion again in a couple of months.   Will Beback  talk  01:00, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
  • I'm inclined to think the other way. Why should we keep an article on someone without adequate source material? Kevin (talk) 01:04, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
    • There are a dozen sources, so it's not exactly inadequately sourced. No material in the article is unsourced. In many respects this is article is significantly superior to a huge number of BLPs and other articles. But this discussions isn't purely about sources, just about notability.   Will Beback  talk  06:50, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
• Delete. Yes there is some mainstream media coverage, but nothing where he is covered in his own right. Kevin (talk) 01:00, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
• Keep- His notability is demonstrably his own, not his wife's. Umbralcorax (talk) 01:10, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

• Keep. Subject is covered in plenty of reliable sources, and (contrary to what Tarc says) not in merely a WP:INHERITED fashion. Deleting the article means we run the risk of coatracking the Michele Bachmann article as more and more of these stories about Marcus hit the national and international news. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 01:15, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

• Keep I think you've kinda jumped the gun here. This should have been discussed first before going straight to an AfD. There is pretty much only a single sentence in the article actually about the campaign. and the info in it not about the campaign can definitely be expanded with the sources out there. Silverseren 01:18, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
• Keep, bordering on strong. He's becoming the John Zaccaro of the 2012 campaign. There's a major piece on him and his business in today's New York Times, "Bachmann Husband's Counseling Center Raises Questions". And that;s hardly the only coverage he's received, as a straightforward GNews search shows. There was a moderately lengthy profile in the Washington Post not two weeks ago.Michele Bachmann’s husband shares her strong conservative values. There's more than enough source material to write a solid article, and more than enough coverage to justify one -- in fact, it demands one. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 01:21, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
• Comment - Predictably, the Dan Savage standard-bearers are out in early force. We all know exactly what is going on here; this article was created by Shankbone for the same reasons that Cirt created the one on the faux santorum neologism. Not one of these insipid keeps has addressed a single issue of why this was nominated; there is nothing notable about "Marcus Bachmann" the man. What mentions there are in reliable sources are either in connection to his famous wife (WP:NOTINHERITED or to his clinic that (quite obviously and understandably) has earned enmity from the gay rights crowd. I'm quite aware that 2012 is shaping up to be one of the nastiest, most bitter years in American politics. But try...please, try...just once to not make the Misplaced Pages another front in your personal crusades. Tarc (talk) 01:27, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

This is not how NOTINHERITED works. No one's making the argument that the subject is notable because his wife is notable. The subject is notable because he has received significant coverage in reliable sources. The coverage probably would not have come if his wife were not notable, but it is coverage all the same. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 01:38, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Tarc, I don't think it does your argument any favors to Misplaced Pages:Assume bad faith. There's no evidence anyone has any interest in using this article to attack the subject. As it is written, it is neutral, informative and reliably sourced, and I have no more to add to it. We are all committed to WP:ENC and it's a shame you disparage. --David Shankbone 01:50, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Well said, David. Tarc has let his emotions get the better of him here. For the record, I disagree with Roscelese's statement that Marcus Bachmann has "received significant coverage" in RS. The majority of the source coverage is about his relationship with his wife and the controversy over his business practices. This has less to do with Marcus and more to do with his wife and business. Viriditas (talk) 03:41, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Roscelese can correct me if I'm wrong, but I think what she's trying to say is that: yes, Marcus is getting all this attention because he's married to Michelle, but the attention is now on him nonetheless. Victor Victoria (talk) 03:56, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

That's a pretty good explanation of my position. Not every shady counselor gets national news coverage - this one happens to have got it because he has a notable wife whose campaign his shady counseling will affect, but it's still coverage of him, not of his wife. We don't decide that people are notable because of their relatives (ie. NOTINHERITED), but if reliable sources do so and consequently give them significant coverage, we go along with them. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:34, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

My emotions are just fine, sport, so kindly take your armchair psychoanalysis to someone who cares. AGF is not a suicide pact, and I will not give it where there is clear evidence of bad-faith editing. This article was created in bad faith. Those who are calling to keep it are acting in bad faith. Period. The "OMG RELIABLY SOURCED" argument is not the be all and end all of determining who gets a wikipedia article and who does not. When we have a case here where the man is only being talked about because of a famous relative, then we should consider not having an article. How many dozens or hundreds of conservative christians run these sorts of therapy clinics in the country? How many of them are married to a political candidate? Tarc (talk) 14:13, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

If there's evidence that David Shankbone or anyone else is acting in bad faith, then present it in an RFC or to Arbcom, please don't sidetrack this discussion with irrelevant personal accusations. Gamaliel (talk) 14:52, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

The "OMG RELIABLY SOURCED" argument is not the be all and end all of determining who gets a wikipedia article and who does not.. You are absolutely wrong, Tarc. See Jimbo's statement "Imagine a world in which every single person on the planet is given free access to the sum of all human knowledge. That's what we're doing." Misplaced Pages is therefore supposed to have an article on anything and everything that is notable. Victor Victoria (talk) 20:00, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

My dear Vic, argumentam ad Jimboem doesn't carry a shred of credibility, so please don't waste my time with such nonsense. Your "you are absolutely wrong" pontification is demonstrably false, and I can point to many, many articles that I have had a hand in deleting as proof. Do we have an article about the woman fired from her job for having large breasts? No. Do we have an article on the reporter who suffered a mild aphasia episode live last year? No. Do we have an article on the JetBlue attendant who went on a tirade? No. Do we have an article on Daniel Brandt? No. Do we have an article on the time Barack Obama swatted a fly during an interview? No. This is an encyclopedia, not a vacuum cleaner. We choose what to chronicle and what to discard. every day. Tarc (talk) 22:28, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Tarc, would you please take a step back or tone it down? You're the only one in this discussion on either side who is gnashing teeth, making the questioning of others' motivations your central argument and being uncivil. The rest of us are discussing it calmly. I also ask you to please do the same on Talk:Marcus Bachmann. Comments like these aren't helpful. --David Shankbone 23:04, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Silence, Shankbone. I will discuss the topic as I see fit. Your use of the Misplaced Pages to denigrate living people is far, far worse than me puncturing some thin-skinned egos. Stop wasting AfD space discussing me; discuss the topic. Tarc (talk) 23:12, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Heh--you're right and I apologize that your wild-eyed frothing distracted me. --David Shankbone 23:23, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

I believe that characterizing intense debate as 'wild-eyed frothing' is over the edge of civility, David. Care to strike? →StaniStani  01:23, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

This whole discussion jumped over that edge a long time ago. Gamaliel (talk) 14:55, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

• Plenty of reliable sources about this guy. Keep it. -- Y not? 02:37, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
• Delete. Per nominator and WP:BLP concerns. Ripberger (talk) 03:19, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
• Keep Significant coverage in reliable sources. Qrsdogg (talk) 04:17, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
• Keep per Qrsdogg. Clearly there is significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. Meets WP:GNG.--JayJasper (talk) 04:43, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
• Keep per WP:HOTTIE. Voyager640 (talk) 05:41, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
• Delete another coatrack article created in the heat of a political campaign. Another example of using Misplaced Pages's high Google ranking to knock your opponent. This article is #4 in a Google search for the subject's name, and its payload is the 'reparative therapy' allegation. Regardless of the subject's political orientation, sleazy practices, or deserved obloquy, Misplaced Pages should not be used as an attack dog. →StaniStani  06:16, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
• Redirect: to some section of Michele Bachmann. The search term is legitimate; this article is not. --MZMcBride (talk) 06:39, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
• Redirect to Michele Bachmann. Marcus has stayed out of the news for many years now. While I sincerely applaud the LGBT community for finally saying "we're sick and tired of this bullshit and we're not going to take it anymore", the collected sources on this subject say little to nothing about Marcus as a person, and are mostly about the reparative therapy controversy and the wacky political positions held by his wife. The potential for very serious BLP issues here outweighs any encyclopedic necessity, and until the time comes that we have good, comprehensive sources about Marcus and his life apart from his wife and her political positions, this article only serves to cause trouble. However, I can also envision a good article that talks about Marcus Bachmann and reparative therapy somewhere other than a BLP, for example in our articles on conversion therapy, the ex-gay movement, religion and homosexuality, or my personal favorite that has not yet been created, homophobia and the Republican Party. ("The Republican Party has engineered a strategy for winning close elections by attracting the votes of homophobes, in particular by attacking proposals to allow sexual minorities to serve openly in the armed forces and efforts to achieve marriage equality for same-sex couples.") As it stands, our current article on Marcus Bachmann repeats what already appears in the family section of the Michele Bachmann article. With that said, there is simply no need for an article on her husband at this time. Viriditas (talk) 07:37, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Re: the duplication of what appears in the article on Michele Bachmann - I actually see this as a positive thing. It means that we will be able to simply link this article and trim the content in the Michele Bachmann article to a short summary. Otherwise, we run the risk of making the Michele Bachmann article a coatrack for information about Marcus's shady practices as more and more stories about him hit the national and international news, whereas if he has his own article, we can keep the Michele article about Michele. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:34, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

• I advocate keeping this article because Mr Bachmann's business practices have received substantial third-party coverage. DS (talk) 18:23, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
• Redirect/Merge to Michele Bachmann presidential campaign, 2012. We might definitely want/need an article on Mr. Bachmann as time goes on, and I don't think it's a huge surprise (or necessarily evidence of malfeasance) that one was created. At the same time, Marcus Bachmann is in the news not only because of who he is married to, but because that person is running a seemingly credible campaign for the presidency—i.e., WP:BLP1E plays a partial role here. His past actions are causing controversy almost solely in one context relating to his wife's political career. As such, I think the general campaign article for Michele Bachmann is the appropriate place for information on Marcus, where we can discuss his impact on the campaign (merging to Michele Bachmann is also possible but I think much less desirable). I also agree with Veriditas that some of this story might be appropriate for discussion in articles like conversion therapy but I'm not sure about this. As others have pointed out, the possible BLP problems are very real and should be taken into account. More so than with other articles, I do not trust our ability to keep this article balanced and free from slander. Because I think avoiding harm is an important part of the spirit of our BLP policy and having a standalone article is significantly more problematic in that regard, because Mr. Bachmann remains a fairly marginal figure whose notability attaches almost exclusively to his wife's run for the presidency, and because we can give readers basically the exact same information by merging and leaving behind a redirect, I think it makes sense at this point to not have a full bio article. As I said that may change at some later date--or not--and obviously there is nothing permanent about a merge/redirect. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 18:24, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
• Delete: if it weren't for his wife running for president noone would care about this guy. Roscelese has no right to malign this BLP by calling him "shady." He provides a valuable service by helping homosexuals overcome unwanted same-sex urges. – Lionel 21:07, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

It doesn't really matter "if it weren't for his wife running for president". Fact is, she *is* running for president, which has drawn attention to him as well. Attention completely unconnected to her campaign. 01:28, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

The notion that the recent media attention Marcus Bachmann is receiving is "completely unconnected to her campaign" is, to my mind, just patently false. Bachmann announced her campaign officially, began rising in the polls, and then we had stories about things that Marcus Bachmann had been doing for years, but which had received very little attention prior to that. To me this fact goes to the heart of the matter when it comes to these kind of debates and our BLP policy in general.

I think it is a terrible idea to get in the habit of essentially saying "look, this one person is very notable, and now this other person associated with them is being covered in the context of the thing the actually notable person is doing, and there are clearly a number of news articles mentioning the not-really-notable associate, so we have to have a BLP." No, we don't. We can cover everything we need to about Marcus Bachmann in his wife's bio or her campaign article--easily--and that's exactly what we should do for now. For all we know, Michele Bachmann will drop out of the race and resign her seat in the House next week and all of this will be forgotten (to make an analogy that I hope gives some keep !voters pause, imagine if Christine O'Donnell had a husband who made it into the news repeatedly, for some relatively peripheral matter, during the month or so last year when Ms. O'Donnell dominated all news outlets and we then created a BLP on him, after which he retreated completely from the spotlight and we never heard from him again--would we be happy with the existence of that article today?). Alternatively, Bachmann will get the nomination in which case of course we will have an article on her husband. We don't know and the basic idea behind WP:CRYSTAL is also somewhat relevant here.

Mainly though, aspects of WP:BLP1E, WP:INHERITED, and WP:EVENT should be guiding our thinking, which to me means we should be cautious about having an article about a man whose name has only been known nationally for a matter of weeks, at best, almost solely because of one particular thing his wife is doing. To me one of the reasons BLP exists as a policy is to prevent creation of full-blown articles like this before that is warranted, which is to say at a point when we can cover all of the relevant information in articles that will not follow the person in question around for the rest of their lives. Also, since this is a threaded reply, I want to actively disassociate myself from the last sentence of Lionelt's comment, even though we are largely on the same side of this discussion. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 07:25, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

• Delete or Redirect/Merge: I favor either deleting this entry or merging it into a section of the entry on Michele Bachmann. I concur with the previous comment that, were it not for his wife running for president, he would not be the subject of a Misplaced Pages entry. While some of the spouses of other announced or prospective presidential candidates have entries, based on their former status as first ladies or (in the case of Todd Palin) first gentleman of a given state, Marcus Bachmann holds no such distinction. It seems that, factual or not, the only reason that an entry was created on him is to highlight his Christian counseling clinic and use the clinic's alleged practices and procedures regarding homosexuality as a round-about "gotcha"-type piece against his wife. SWMNPoliSciProject (talk) 21:28, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
• Amusing crap. "federally-subsidized farm". Is there any farm in the US that's not federally subsidized? Or in the EU for that matter? FuFoFuEd (talk) 01:24, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
• Keep. Worthy of FA/GA/DYK/RFAR and all that. FuFoFuEd (talk) 01:41, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
• Keep. Is no-brainer. Calamitybrook (talk) 02:18, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
• Delete or Redirect/Merge: The article is very bad, and there is simply not enough information out there to make a substantive article. If there is controversy over this guy's job (which seems to be the only thing notable about him), it is relevant solely to how it affect Bachman. The source in this article can be used in her article.LedRush (talk) 14:21, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
• Weak keep I think this is a repairable, maintainable article, and people will want information on Marcus Bachmann. However, Rick Santorum's family members, some of whom have a tiny bit of independent notability, are tucked into Rick Santorum#Family. Everything about Marcus not related to his business's effect on the presidential campaign can similarly be merged into Michele Bachmann#Family.
  I know this Keep !vote is swimming against the tide, at least in BLP's about those who espouse politically conservative positions. I believe with very minor tweaks, the POV of this article will be neutral. Conversion therapists Joseph Nicolosi and Richard A. Cohen already freestanding Misplaced Pages articles; Bachmann's business may have been less notable, but his political connections and mainstream media attention certainly make up the difference. / edg ☺ ☭ 16:06, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Keep and expand. Presidential politics makes him notable. Billy Hathorn (talk) 17:07, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

• Keep Notable now. This is knee jerk deletionist barbarians at the gate and nothing more, and they should be disciplined per policy if applicable. Merrill Stubing (talk) 18:03, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
• Keep. "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" -  Done. The mere fact that the article is "headed in a direction" to include political facts that you don't like is a really poor excuse for deletion. Wnt (talk) 22:11, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
• Comment: Yeah, and if Mary were not the mother of Christ, nobody would care about her. I don't understand this argument. Sorry. This guy is the husband of a leading candidate for president. That's notable. It is long past the time to close this discussion. Calamitybrook (talk) 02:03, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

And yet we can find thousands of sources discussing Mary that don't even mention her son (although the vast majority do). That's not the case here, though.--Yaksar (let's chat) 04:39, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

How many sources about Pat Nixon, Betty Ford, or Barbara Bush don't mention their famous husbands? All that we requires is that subjects are notable, not that they are independently notable.   Will Beback  talk  07:47, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

We even have an article about Bill Clinton even though it was his wife who was President for 8 years (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:24, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

• Delete - Agree with Stanistani. Negativecharge (talk) 10:27, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
• Delete - The nominator's argument sums it up well. Nothing this individual has done on his own meets our general notability guideline. He is newsworthy (and only so for those with a particular political agenda), but not encyclopedia-worthy. Peacock (talk) 11:44, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
• Delete or merge into Michele Bachmann per nom and many others. This is another sad example of political manipulation of the encyclopedia. People who are voting keep simply because of their own political preferences need to step back and take a good look at what they are doing. If I were to vote with my own political preferences I'd be right there with you, but I simply don't want to run all over our basic principles to get my way politically in an American election.Griswaldo (talk) 11:47, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
• Merge. Could be easily and briefly summarized in the Michelle Bachmann article. No way this guy would have his own article if not for his wife. Therefore, let them bask in the soft glow of notability together. Ocaasi 12:37, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

If we follow your line of reasoning, all the first ladies of the United States (except for Hillary Clinton who became notable in her own right as a US Senator and then Secretary of State) should be merged into their husbands' articles. WP:NOTINHERITED applies to Misplaced Pages. If Marcus Bachmann inherited his notability outside Misplaced Pages, then he becomes notable in his own right within Misplaced Pages. Victor Victoria (talk) 16:48, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

If you actually did follow the line of reasoning, then you wouldn't have arrived at such a ridiculous "OMG all the first ladies lose their articles?!?" conclusion. The spouse of the President of the United States is notable in itself. Period. Full Stop. They take on a life of their own upon the spouse taking office, often taking on well-publicized causes and programs. If Michele somehow wins the presidency, Marcus qualifies for an article immediately, even if he never utters so much of a peep from now until inauguration day. At this time, however, his notability is derived completely and wholly from who he is married to. There is nothing more to this argument. Tarc (talk) 17:29, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Kitty Dukakis, Ann Romney, Sarah Hildreth Butler, Chuck Hunt, Susan Roosevelt Weld, John Zaccaro, Todd Palin, Eleanor "Sis" Daley, Richard C. Blum. There are many articles on people who are famous chiefly for being married to politicians.   Will Beback  talk  01:20, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

The spouses of governors are, like the spouses of presidents, inherently public figures. It's part of the job description. They do not suddenly become notable simply because their spouses run for president. Also, don't confuse gaining notability with piquing the interests of Misplaced Pages editors.Griswaldo (talk) 01:32, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

And spouses of mayors and senators? People are notable when they're noted. If a subject gets enough coverage then they're notable regardless of who they married.   Will Beback  talk  01:39, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Richard C. Blum is notable on his own because of his career. Eleanor "Sis" Daley is notable because she was the matriarch of an infamous political dynasty in Chicago, not simply because she was some mayors wife. That leaves John Zaccaro as the only other non-Governor's spouse, and frankly I don't know what makes him notable. Do you want to start the AfD Will because I'll be right behind you. Oh and btw, have you ever heard of something called WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. If you haven't I suggest that right now is the right time for you to read it.Griswaldo (talk) 01:49, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

• Redirect to Michelle Bachmann. Although the "Background" section is sourced, there is nothing there of the sort that couldn't be sourced for most Americans - no real sign of notbaility there. "Views" is similar, stating his religion and a dispute with a blogger. "Bachmann & Associates" gets close to notability, but seems to be discussing his clinic, not him. I would not particularly object if a sourced sentence or two from that section was merged into a subsection about him within the Michelle Bachmann article, however. So for now, basically we are left with him being the husband of a candidate for a party's presidential nomination, which could and of course should be stated in his wife's article. If Michelle Bachmann gets nominated, of course he will become notable enough for his own article. Or if he stops "stay out of the spotlight." But until then, a redirect seems most appropriate. Rlendog (talk) 19:05, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
• Keep. The subject has become, perhaps just barely, sufficiently notable. So if you want to consider this a "weak keep," by all means. And we really could do without statements like "Those who are calling to keep it are acting in bad faith. Period." I'm not acting in bad faith and I think everybody is just expressing their opinion, whether any given editor agrees with it or not. Neutron (talk) 20:40, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
• Keep -- puzzling that one could take the view that the sources available on Bachmann do not add up to WP:GNG. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 20:55, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
• Redirect for a year and see if anyone still cares about the guy once Bachmann is no longer running for the nomination. Either (a) she will win the GOP nomination in which case he will obviously be notable and nobody whatsoever will object to an article existing or (b) she will not win the GOP nomination and nobody whatsoever will care about this drummed up media frenzy. --B (talk) 00:58, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
• Keep: If a subject has significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed notable, with only narrow exceptions. It doesn't matter why the coverage exists, only that it does. And it certainly does in this case, as the extensive list of references, many good sized articles from major newspapers, shows. Buddy432 (talk) 01:34, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

  While it is debatable that he correctly meets our notability guidelines, it should be also be pointed out that WP:GNG is merely a guideline for the bare minimum requirements of inclusion. As such it does not create an imperative for inclusion, though unfortunately there seem to be editors here who treat it that way. As such it also does not trump policies like WP:BLP.Griswaldo (talk) 01:40, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

  You beat me to that point. Additionally, it is argued (and I think persuasively) that these sources aren't independent of the subject (Ms. Bachman).LedRush (talk) 01:43, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

• How is this source, as an example, not entirely about Marcus? It has a very brief half sentence at the beginning that clarifies who he's married to and the entire rest is about Marcus and just Marcus. It's titled "The Education of Marcus Bachmann", for goodness sake. Silverseren 01:54, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

• In how many reliable sources can you find coverage of Stephen Slater, Al Gore III, or Debrahlee Lorenzana? Where are their articles? Oh. Nowhere? I don't know how many times it needs to be said, but the article rescue squad's Holy Grail of article retention, WP:RS is not the sole arbiter of article-worthiness. Tarc (talk) 01:59, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

• AfD debates (Biographical)
• AfD debates