- 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. (non-admin closure) Jovanmilic97 ( talk) 09:04, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
Paul Pelosi
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- Paul Pelosi ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Kind of beyond me how this guy has a standalone article when all of his notability is from Speaker Pelosi. Every article. It doesn’t take much research to surmise that his page should be deleted or redirected to hers. Trillfendi ( talk) 01:57, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. DannyS712 ( talk) 02:56, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. DannyS712 ( talk) 02:57, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
- Keep notability is not inherited. The difficulty here is she is more notable than he is and eclipses him. He's also fairly private. Still, the SF Gate article counts, and Mr. Pelosi's minor league football ownership attracted some attention as well, such as but not including to here [1]. It's enough to get him over the WP:GNG line, and most importantly I think he'd be similarly borderline notable if he were married to someone else. SportingFlyer talk 03:25, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka ( talk) 03:37, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka ( talk) 03:37, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the
list of California-related deletion discussions.
Bakazaka (
talk) 03:37, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
- To make a long comment short, SFG still manages to make those about his wife even from the first sentences. Especially the one cited in the page which could be summed up by this sentence: "I've made a conscious effort to not be involved or give the appearance of being involved in her political career.” I really don’t see much out there about his business career especially that doesn’t drag her name into it for no reason other than to drag her name into it. I disagree about the borderline notability if he was married to someone else because she isn’t just any politician, she’s the most powerful woman in America (media jargon, not my opinion). “Husband of” isn’t notability, the caption under that photo of her (not him) in the WaPo article perfectly illustrates that.
Trillfendi (
talk) 04:24, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
- Yes, but having a substantial stake in the California real estate industry and tilting at minor league football ownership windmills is an indicator of notability. We'll agree to disagree here, then. SportingFlyer talk 04:28, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
- To make a long comment short, SFG still manages to make those about his wife even from the first sentences. Especially the one cited in the page which could be summed up by this sentence: "I've made a conscious effort to not be involved or give the appearance of being involved in her political career.” I really don’t see much out there about his business career especially that doesn’t drag her name into it for no reason other than to drag her name into it. I disagree about the borderline notability if he was married to someone else because she isn’t just any politician, she’s the most powerful woman in America (media jargon, not my opinion). “Husband of” isn’t notability, the caption under that photo of her (not him) in the WaPo article perfectly illustrates that.
Trillfendi (
talk) 04:24, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
- keep seems to pass WP:GNG to me, and doesn't seem to violate any policy that I can detect.-- Paul McDonald ( talk) 04:02, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
- Seeming to pass is what got Isha Ambani’s article deleted. We gotta dig deeper, folks.
Trillfendi (
talk) 04:25, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
- Okay then. Passes
WP:GNG. And
Isha Ambani is a redirect, I can find no AFD... Great big "Huh???"--
Paul McDonald (
talk) 12:02, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
- Nevermind, found Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Isha Ambani. But I'm still confused how an AFD on an article about a female businesswoman from India has any bearing on this AFD. Is this a case of WP:SOURGRAPES??-- Paul McDonald ( talk) 12:17, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
- Okay then. Passes
WP:GNG. And
Isha Ambani is a redirect, I can find no AFD... Great big "Huh???"--
Paul McDonald (
talk) 12:02, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
- Seeming to pass is what got Isha Ambani’s article deleted. We gotta dig deeper, folks.
Trillfendi (
talk) 04:25, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
- Keep as a pass of WP:GNG. It's impossible to talk about him without mentioning his spouse, for obvious reasons, and of course articles that only mention him in passing as a spouse should not count toward notability. But among other things he's actually notorious for losing millions in American football leagues that aren't named "NFL". I just added the Washington Post profile [2] on the occasion of his first investment in the UFL. He passes WP:GNG on his own, and there's plenty of material on him to expand the article, should someone wish to build up rather than tear down. Bakazaka ( talk) 04:13, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
- Keep per SportingFlyer's arguments. The articles about his investments in minor league American football teams is totally separate from his wife's political activities, and is likely enough for him to pass WP:GNG on his own. Ejgreen77 ( talk) 18:12, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
- Lean delete I don't know if minor-league sports ownership is enough to prove notability for me personally, and as others mentioned notability is not inherited. Bkissin ( talk) 22:03, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
- The actual wording of WP:INHERIT: "Individuals in close, personal relationships with famous people (including politicians) can have an independent article even if they are known solely for such a relationship, but only if they pass WP:GNG." Plus, we have scads of articles on political spouses: Todd Palin, Michael Haley, Jeanette Rubio, Columba Bush a few of the many we keep because they get press despite the fact that there is no notable accomplishment beyond the marriage. Paul Pelosi, by contrast, is a highly accomplished if extremely private man. E.M.Gregory ( talk) 23:19, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
- Todd Palin, Michael Haley, Jeanette Rubio, and Columba Bush have held offices as First Spouses of their respective states because of their marriages. That’s notable.
Trillfendi (
talk) 23:32, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
- First spouses of Governors of American states are not automatically notable (spouses of U.S. Presidents are). We keep politicla spouses when, as with Pelosi and as with numerous spouses of Senators and Congressmen, the spouse attracts sufficient press attention. E.M.Gregory ( talk) 23:50, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
- Keep I think that the role of his wealth in funding her career, and the press coverage of the fact that he doesn't want to be covered in the press are more than sufficient to make him notable. E.M.Gregory ( talk) 23:14, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
- 1) He says "I've made a conscious effort to not be involved or give the appearance of being involved in her political career," so where is the verifiability that he funds her career rather than donors and 2) That’s a contradiction. 3) Not wanting to be a public figure isn’t notability. And 4) Y’all keep bringing up his business career yet none of you want to provide sources for it.
Trillfendi (
talk) 23:28, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
- Responding to Trillfendi question "so where is the verifiability that he funds her career rather than donors"? On the page. Source 5. San Francisco Chronicle detail the fact that Paul Pelosi's wealth funded Congresswoman Pelosi's career. It's WP:SIGCOV of a pretty significant fact. E.M.Gregory ( talk) 23:56, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
- I perceived that as they’re rich enough that she doesn’t have the need to do political fundraisers if she doesn’t want to, not that he was actually writing checks to her campaign, therefore funding it.
Based on FEC records, he hasn’t donated a dime.
Trillfendi (
talk) 00:00, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
-
Straw man argument. His wealth and their marriage has funded her career that's not the same thing as giving campaign donations. She was able to dedicate herself to public life BECAUSE he brought in the bucks. I know a cardiologist who funds the career of her husband, a theology professor at a minor seminary; a corporate lawyer who funds the career of her husband, a literary novelist (he gets great reviews, earns peanuts in royalties.) There is nothing unusual about the Pelosis' supportive marriage, except that it gets
WP:SIGCOV.
E.M.Gregory (
talk) 00:36, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
- I’m still trying to figure out how, really, one regional article about their relationship correlates to sigcov for a whole article to stand on. Trillfendi ( talk) 01:39, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
-
Straw man argument. His wealth and their marriage has funded her career that's not the same thing as giving campaign donations. She was able to dedicate herself to public life BECAUSE he brought in the bucks. I know a cardiologist who funds the career of her husband, a theology professor at a minor seminary; a corporate lawyer who funds the career of her husband, a literary novelist (he gets great reviews, earns peanuts in royalties.) There is nothing unusual about the Pelosis' supportive marriage, except that it gets
WP:SIGCOV.
E.M.Gregory (
talk) 00:36, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
- Business career sources like
[3]
[4]
[5]? Also can you please clarify your recent edit summary, "I can never just press publish changes without you MFs adding shit at the last second"?
SportingFlyer
talk 23:37, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
- It was really just my mumbling that everytime I press publish changes, another person has gone back to make an addendum so because of edit conflict I have to do it over. It wasn’t meant to be taken seriously or acknowledged. Trillfendi ( talk) 23:43, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
- Now with regard to these sources, heavy.com is not reliable, but the WaPo and Hill ones could go, I suppose. (I really still think based on its reporting that it should go in her personal life section). Trillfendi ( talk) 23:49, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
- 1) He says "I've made a conscious effort to not be involved or give the appearance of being involved in her political career," so where is the verifiability that he funds her career rather than donors and 2) That’s a contradiction. 3) Not wanting to be a public figure isn’t notability. And 4) Y’all keep bringing up his business career yet none of you want to provide sources for it.
Trillfendi (
talk) 23:28, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
- Searched WSJ, here's a little of what's out there. More than enough to support notability:
- Pelosi Investment Shows Unlikely Energy Alliance - [ https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB121944622079465097}: "Aug 23, 2008 - The purchase is listed as stock held by the speaker's husband, successful financier and businessman Paul Pelosi. The investment rose at the ..."
- Storied Investor's Football League Fumbles - WSJ [ https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424127887324077704578358904110131698": Mar 28, 2013 - Paul Pelosi Associated Press. Mr. Hambrecht says he had wanted the UFL to launch with a broader group of investors, but the 2008 financial ...
- Lawmakers Keep Earning Quick Profits on IPOs - WSJ [6] Jun 18, 1996 - "All seven were listed in the name of her husband, San Francisco businessman Paul Pelosi. The trades included some of last year's hottest IPOs ..." E.M.Gregory ( talk) 02:13, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
- The first one turns a 404 page unavailable error, so I can’t really say anything about that, but I’m still trying to figure out the independent notability of a businessman who is referred to as “husband” in his own dealings. Trillfendi ( talk) 01:13, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
- Keep Easily passes WP:GNG as showed by the sources listed in the comments above. -- Enos733 ( talk) 17:56, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
- Keep per above arguments. Danski14 (talk) 01:30, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
- 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.