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, with some suggestions that the article can be re-nominated after the election, when its notability may have changed. Bishonen | talk 17:30, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hillary Rodham senior thesis

[edit]

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

Unnotable paper. There have been calls to delete or merge this article before on its talk page. It's already summarized in the Hillary Clinton article as: "Rodham wrote her senior thesis, a critique of the tactics of radical community organizer Saul Alinsky, under Professor Schechter.[34] (Years later, while she was first lady, access to her thesis was restricted at the request of the White House and it became the subject of some speculation. The thesis was later released.[34])"[1] so I think deleting or redirecting this is better than a merge. Emily Goldstein (talk) 04:58, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 05:56, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 05:56, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 05:56, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The interest in the thesis seems to stem solely from when it was unavailable, so I think its mention in the Hillary Clinton article is sufficient enough. The paper itself doesn't appear notable, even if its article is well sourced and written. For reference, here is the previous and unsuccessful merge proposal. Jr8825 • Talk 09:50, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The nominator hasn't advanced a reason why this article is just not notable, it would be helpful if they could do so. Multiple articles in major news sources over a series of several years suggest this isn't an ordinary thesis. It is standard for U.S. presidents and presidential candidates to have their personal lives covered in detail on Wikipedia, which of course is only possible because the wider media do likewise. IgnorantArmies (talk) 13:54, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. Too many reliable third-party sources about this. This article was created in 2007; nominating it for deletion only 11 days before the US presidential election seems strange to me. At least two editors left arguments on the talkpage to keep the article in 2014.Zigzig20s (talk) 14:36, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep While the paper is not notable as an academic work, it is notable because it has been extensively written about. There are adequate sources to write it in a neutral manner. A lot of Hillary-haters have unfairly used her connection with Alinsky to smear her, which has added to the notability of the paper and makes this article useful for readers since it provides a fair account of what she actually wrote. TFD (talk) 16:03, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. An interesting subject that a substantial number of people would like to read about, judging by page views in excess of a thousand a day. The fact that it was once unavailable, and is now available, does not stem the notability deriving from its period of unavailability. bd2412 T 16:23, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment An article like this, while it has sufficient coverage in reliable sources, really needs to be completely neutral or it can become a coatrack in no time. A quick glance at the article seems to show that it gives a lot of weight to views criticizing the withholding of the thesis, without noting that many of the views expressed are from partisan sources (Brock, Noonan, Olson). Nwlaw63 (talk) 17:44, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That sounds like an editing issue to be fixed within the article, not an argument for or against deletion. Any article on a controversial topic can become a coatrack for partisan views; the solution is careful policing of the article content. bd2412 T 17:53, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I do not think it gives undue weight. The fact that not releasing it was criticized is important to the story and no reason for keeping the thesis sealed has been provided. It should be pointed out in the article however that the suspicions of the anti-Hillary commentators that it showed her support of Alinsky turned out to be false. But as BD2412 says, any weight issues can be fixed. TFD (talk) 19:23, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I don't disagree and I wasn't arguing for deletion. I do think the article would be bettered by noting the partisan nature of many of the critics, and, as noted above, that the thesis did not turn to be a strong defense of Alinsky's ideas. Nwlaw63 (talk) 22:01, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Defer. Due to the potential appearance of politically-based bias, it would be wise to defer discussion of this topic entirely (and thus, a temporary Keep) until after the conclusion of elections. Tianmang (talk) 21:03, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Temporary keep. Regardless of arguments over whether this has received enough coverage in its own right, if Clinton wins the election this will become de facto notable in its own right as a political work written by a US President. Deleting something when (at the time of writing) there's a 76% chance it will just be recreated in three weeks seems like bureaucracy for bureaucracy's sake. I'd suggest closing or withdrawing this AFD, and renominating in in a month. ‑ Iridescent 09:49, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is notable, in the sense of WP:GNG, coverage in independent reliable secondary sources. It is also information in the public interest. I agree that some of the sources are biased, but the article should be edited to maintain neutrality, not deleted. Sławomir Biały (talk)
Comment: Like the Donald Trump's hair page and Socks' page this page seems like a waste of space, unlike the pages deleted by the administrator named Neutrality: (Political positions of Ralph Nader, political positions of Jill Stein, political positions of Cynthia McKinney). For info, Socks is was the Clinton family's cat. SashiRolls (talk) 16:59, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable either intrinsically or in Sec'y Clinton's life. Discussion would be WP:UNDUE in her biography article and this feels like a coatrack or POV fork in the making. SPECIFICO talk 00:19, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Temporally notable as the paper itself is a talking point during the elections. Perhaps revisit after the elections, but this has been reference in several discussions in which I've been embroiled. jzp (talk) 00:11, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep extensive, intensive coverage in RS passes WP:GNG.E.M.Gregory (talk) 07:12, 5 November 2016 (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.