Talk:Susan Bayh

This article was nominated for deletion on July 22, 2008. The result of the discussion was keep.

Merge & Prod

I agree with the merge tag, this should be merged with Evan Bayh. I also agree with prod, person is non notable other than being the wife of a senator. Charles Edward 14:35, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

The Wikipedia notability guideline disagrees with you. 68.83.72.162 (talk) 23:26, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Coatrack

This subject is nonnotable and the article fits the description in WP:COATRACK. The article seems to be invented as an occasion to discuss the finances of her politician husband. Hurmata (talk) 08:03, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

The finances and potential sources of attempts to influence.

Article creator wrote that the Bayhs maintain a home in Indiana, but reside primarily in the nation's capital. Nonnotable. To represent a jurisdiction, you must be a legal resident of it. At the same time, if you don't live close to the capital, you need to have your primary residence there. It's also not publicly important which spouse owns the D.C. residence. Hurmata (talk) 10:15, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Exactly, Hurmata. This is about a Democrat, not a Republican, so it's nonnotable. Some people seem to think this is an unbiased project and forget it's Wikipedia! NPOV writing/POV editing rules, Baby! 68.83.72.162 (talk) 23:20, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

About the article section entitled "Controversy"

This section is intended to criticize the spouse, Evan, of the subject of the article, Susan, despite ostensibly criticizing Susan. The opening line is that "some" consider her corporate directorships "inappropriate". Previous editor purported to verify this claim with two quotes from newspapers. But the quotes don't explicitly say who is being criticized (him or her or both), they do not use the word "inappropriate", and they do not say *she* is doing anything inappropriate. It's all unacceptably vague. This whole article is just a smear of Senator Evan Bayh. The thrust of Controversy is that it's inappropriate for *him* to be married to a director of corporations. It can't be inappropriate for *her* to be a director of corporations. Hurmata (talk) 10:30, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I see that somebody has restored content previously cited as violating WP:COATRACK and perhaps WP:BLP and the notability criterion. I have just deleted this material. One way in which the original article have "coatracked" is in explicitly relating stages in Susan Bayh's career to stages in Evan Bayh's career (this was done at least three times). This article was created by a user who claims to be a corporate attorney and to have contributed to many Wikipedia articles on Americal legal matters. It would ought to be proposed for deletion, except that that possibility is seemingly closed off by an ill conceived Wikipedia policy against ever reproposing an article for deletion.

Miscellaneous objections. Surprisingly, the educated people behind the existence of this article and the coatracking and airing of her income history can't write properly: they misapply commas and paragraph breaks. Her childrens' names are nonnotable. Hurmata (talk) 22:38, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

nice apostrophe placement in childrens' (sic), as you complain about the punctuation of others. 68.83.72.162 (talk) 23:20, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

A second indicator that the article was intended as a "coatrack" is the consistent referral to her as "Susan" instead of "Bayh". This entails that the article is surreptitiously conceived as being about the married couple of Evan and Susan Bayh.

I must make a correction about the article's history. The editor who contributed most of the controversial content, "Eastlaw", seems not to be the editor who created the article -- at least in its current life. A tag in the earliest version of the current incarnation notes something like the article had existed once and been deleted. 146.244.72.204 (talk) 05:44, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

"entails?" Perhaps you meant "implies," there?68.83.72.162 (talk) 23:20, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Content that potentially violates policies of NPOV or BLP

I deleted the sentence, "Mrs. Bayh’s relationship with these companies has been criticized by some as inappropriate, given her marriage to a prominent U.S. Senator." I think it violated the statement in the box at the top of this very page: "This article must adhere to the policy on biographies of living persons. Controversial material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libellous." "Inappropriate relationship" regarding what she does for a living seems to be controversial, and the statement was inadequately sourced. Hurmata (talk) 06:43, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Moving of some material to the article on Evan Bayh

The material which has for some weeks been accused of being the most "coatrack" in nature has been moved to the article on Evan Bayh. Since the end of July, nobody has defended it here. Therefore, it is now to be found in the article on the Senator -- the supposed appearance of impropriety is about him, not about his wife. Hurmata (talk) 06:04, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Restored some content

I restored some of the previously accepted content that was deleted when the "controversy" section was moved. The list of boards she has served on as well as the well-sourced stock option information is still pertinent to Susan's biography.thirdreading (talk) 11:32, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Thirdreading has promptly rectified their incorrect edit, in which this new thread, was created, inserted into my preceding comment and signed with my old time stamp. Thirdreading has now put their own signature on this, their comment. I'll give Thirdreading credit for having this much integrity after committing a uniquely careless edit. Hurmata (talk) 04:21, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Apologize for the error. Agree it was a careless copy and paste that I neglected to change to my own sig. Fixed immediately. Clearly not meant misrepresent who made the edit. thirdreading (talk) 13:21, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

While I concede that option sales may not be notable, the list of boards on which she has served absolutely is. It's be like writing an article about a CEO that didn't mention which company they ran. thirdreading (talk) 13:21, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

How is Susan Bayh notable?

Thirdreading created this article (at least in its present incarnation) and persistently reinserts certain material against objections that the said material is not notable. I now call on Thirdreading to give reasons in defense their edits, something they have never done so far. I will now present an argument as to why this material is not notable. The material in question is Bayh's corporate board memberships. Susan Bayh is the spouse of a very notable person, which is not notable. She is also a director of corporations. That isn't notable either: merely practicing a profession usually doesn't make you notable. We are not going to allow a biography of just any member of the board of, say, General Motors just because they are a member of the board of General Motors. Reportedly, within the last 12 months Bayh has been the director of eight corporations. That too is almost certainly not notable either. If she held the all time record for the number of simultaneous directorships held, or if there were some notable, persistent legal or professional consequence of holding as many as eight directorships, you could justify making an article in Wikipedia. I object to the very existence of this article. Bureaucratically, it seems, its removal seems to have been rendered unfeasible; but that does not establish the notability of the article, so the notability is still fair game for discussion. Being practical, I am contending that even if the article cannot be removed, we can at least keep it nontedious by keeping out details beyond a certain level.

Readers are cautioned that Wikipedia notability is not the same as real world notability. In the real world, it is appropriate and relevant to monitor the wheeling and dealing of rich people and "captains of industry". There are organizations dedicated to doing so in the interest of promoting ethics and corporate responsibility to society at large. Those organizations are where you should go to scrutinize the wheeling and dealing of Susan Bayh. Hurmata (talk) 19:30, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Hurmata, the notability of this article was discussed in the articles for deletion section. The result was "Keep". Feel free to read it over and see both sides of the issue. Now, you may not like that decision, but that doesn't mean you can delete major sections of the article simply because you don't like them. Thirdreading (talk) 09:08, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

This is misleading -- how surprising. A decision not to delete an article is not a decision to maintain the article without significant changes. Please don't try to argue that a "kept" article is exempt from Wikipedia standards. Another misrepresentation is the insinuation that the discussion of whether to delete this article was substantial, copious, thorough. Hurmata (talk) 05:57, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Remove POV tag?

I have reworded the article. Do people feel we can now remove the POV tag? --BwB (talk) 15:21, 24 April 2010 (UTC)