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 Delete. A classic case of someone who's on the way to possible notability, but isn't there yet. A few WP:RS based on a couple of incidents doesn't quite cut it, really. Very little coverage outside these minor incidents. No problem with re-creation if she manages to increase her claims of notability. ELIMINATORJR 11:24, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Katherine Prudhomme

[edit]
Katherine Prudhomme (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

Non-notable. In a nutshell: she ranted at the Clintons, appeared on "many syndicated political talk shows", has some opinions about local and national politics, and heckled Giuliani (in a state where candidates spend a lot of time). Also, no references. She might become notable if her role grew and she garnered more press attention, but not yet. Biruitorul 22:41, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, but all these sources refer primarily to the Giuliani incident, with a couple giving some rather cursory background on her. That fails the "in depth" requirement of WP:BIO. Also, given that the mentions all sound similar, it seems likely they all originated from an AP press release. If she makes a few more news cycles in more substantive form, maybe. But merely asking a question of a candidate (essentially the reason she received coverage) does not generate encyclopedic notability. Biruitorul 01:50, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I left out at least twenty articles from much smaller newspapers (and, no, I am not going to spend the time to list every single article out there, I provided some citations and if you need more information for your decision then you need to track it down), mostly newspapers in the New England region who DO go into great depth about her point of view. Also, I specifically listed the name of the actual reporter that wrote the articles in these newspapers that have national followings for the specific reason that I believed, accurately of course, that you would reply that each of these articles are only repeating Associated Press work. Now, in the London example, clearly, the London paper is repeating word for word the AP article. However, in the KC Star and the others there was an individual reporter from the paper covering the story. Therefore, your argument that these national newspapers were merely parroting the AP story is inaccurate. I also did not take the time to list all of the articles that either talked about her or interviewed her during the Brodderick scandal. The amount of information out there concerning her is more than enough to meet the demands of notability. Once again, the article should not be deleted and I argue for KEEP.--Getaway 14:02, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Also, it is an Associated Press article, not press release.--Getaway 15:31, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, article; I stand corrected. However: just because the KC Star happens to have Chrostowski's byline on it doesn't mean he was anywhere near NH recently. He gives no more information than the raw AP news feed did, as far as I can see. She may have been covered during Broaddrick, but the onus is on the keep voters to show that (preferably by inserting citations into the article). Also, note that her entry has drawn ridicule for Wikipedia from a man who apparently is rather influential in his sphere. I still don't see the notability, and retain my "delete" stance. Biruitorul 23:00, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Look, you, Biruitorul, obviously have a lot invested in making sure that this article is deleted. Fine. However, your criticism are over the top. For example, You quoted the Opinion Journal of the Wall Street Journal to indicate that Prudhomme has no notability. That is rich. You quote most read newspaper in the U.S. to show that she has no notability, but the article you quote mentions her in the article. Talk about spin. This Lanny Davis territory. Soon you will have me believing that I should be deleting the article myself. Also, in the article that you quote you twist the guys words around so much that you make the claim that he is making fun of the Wikipedia article on Prudhomme, but when in fact, when you actually read the article, he is making fun of the Associated Press reporter for not pointing out that Prudhomme IS a political gadfly and it took a bunch of rank amateurs like us to point out Prudhomme's background. He stated specifically that he wished the AP reporter has pointed out Prudhomme's background just like the Wikipedia article did. You clearly attempted to spin that article to your favor, but I actually read it and saw that you were engaging POV spin. KEEP per the comments of the international distributed and known Wall Street Journal reporter.--Getaway 14:36, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, I am Lanny Davis! Seriously, though: we can't tell all that Taranto is implying, given an apparent tendency to use irony, but from what I can infer (ie, my own spin): a) "quite an activist" is a bit tongue-in-cheek, given her 59 Google hits (as compared with 1.76 million for Cindy Sheehan) and b) "nonauthoritative user-written online encyclopedia" is shorthand for saying "She's even on Wikipedia! That silly "encyclopedia" where anyone can write anything he wants and no one fact-checks!" In other words, it's creating yet more ridicule for us. Biruitorul 21:52, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, you don't need to e-mail me; just work on improving the article itself in order to try and establish notability. Oh, come on: she asked him a question in one of the two most important primary states, where any partisan hack (or non-hack, for that matter) is within shouting distance of a candidate for about 18 months before the primary. Not exactly an "influence" on his campaign, especially because her amazing question dealt with an issue of very little substance (ie, no foreign or domestic policy was involved). I'm sure Stephanopoulos has commented on a lot of people in his career. Not every guest of Hannity/Colmes/O'Reilly deserves a page. Yes, I know that taken together these add up a little, but really, it's still pretty thin.
I'm not saying that no current events belong on Wikipedia (though it would be nice to have, say, a 6-month delay on new news stories getting on here), but there is a great imbalance in coverage of new vs. even slightly older events, and keeping Prudhomme's biography only adds to that. The fact is, she's still a trifling gadfly, and until her standing really takes a jump, we'd do best to take her off here. Biruitorul 04:04, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, at some point it comes down to differing interpretations of the notability guidelines (and by the way, the Mays article too should probably go, and I'd likely vote for deletion if you nominated it): I guess I set the bar higher than you. Improvement could come in the form of more references (the three footnotes only cover the Giuliani incident). I'm sure not everyone has banned Wikipedia as a source. Lewinsky was more than personal: Clinton was accused of lying under oath in Federal court. Of course personal issues are important, but they can adequately be covered in Giuliani's article - we don't need an extra article on one individual who highlighted those troubles. Finally, I dispute the "breakthrough" nature of the Giuliani incident for two reasons. One, it was a slow news day and the exchange has blown over already. Two, it didn't make "headlines" (page 1) but instead was buried somewhere inside. In sum: I'm not saying she's a complete and utter nobody, but she's close enough that we need not create further clutter. But like I've said, I don't expect any sudden change of heart from either of us. Biruitorul 05:34, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
After well over a year registered on Wikipedia (4 total years registered + unregistered), I have a pretty good sense of what should or should not be here, and in this case, my radar says, quite clearly, "delete", for all the reasons I've outlined. It is indeed a shame more schools don't allow it, especially with all the high-quality articles on Wikipedia (of which this isn't one). However, I look at things differently: improvement through deletion rather than throwing up our hands, saying we'll never be reliable, and allowing all manner of trivia on here. I'm not an out-and-out deletionist, but I do tend in that direction. Biruitorul 21:52, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's OK - I didn't think you were acting maliciously. Biruitorul 21:52, 25 August 2007 (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.
More