Deletion of Marcus Bachmann

Comment: He is only notable for Wikipedia purposes because of his wife. I fear that keeping it will serve only as a  for Bachmann-bashing
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Coatrack articles (WP:COATRACK)

Comment: 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&mdash;i.e.,  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
Stance: merge
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons (WP:BLP1E||WP:HARM)

Comment: The sources are about him, there is no doubt about that. On the other hand, the sources most likely would not have written about him if his wife wasn't trying to become President. It's not our job, however, to judge ''why'' reliable sources cover a subject and even if we can assume why they do so, we still cannot let the reason for the coverage influence the fact that there ''is'' sufficient coverage. If it turns out later that his notability was strictly temporary, we can still delete it then but currently the article meets |the relevant notability guideline, so there is no reason to delete it. If some editors want to use it for personal agendas, then it's our job to stop them and strive for a NPOV article but such (perceived) agendas are not a reason to delete an article. Regards
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:BIO)

Comment: Per nominator and  concerns
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons (WP:BLP)

Comment: 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 .  The lack of a Marcus article causes  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 Wikipedia:Wikipedia 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 http://stats.grok.se/en/201107/Marcus%20Bachmann it had 2,000 views, showing this need exists; I imagine today's hits will be much higher.  --David
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Verifiability (WP:V||WP:WEIGHT)

Comment: Subject is covered in plenty of reliable sources, and (contrary to what Tarc says) not in merely a  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
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:INHERITED)

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 ( 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 Wikipedia another front in your personal crusades
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:NOTINHERITED)

Comment: as per . If he wasn't married to MB (the 1E), he would not be in the news at all
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons (WP:BLP1E)

Comment: prefer '''Merge''' into Michelle Bachmann. On the one hand, this article was clearly created for bad-faith reasons (the creator admits as much above), and still reads like an |attack page - it's essentially just a List of Marcus Bachmann controversies. On the other hand, he does technically meet our standards for inclusion. I think the best thing to do would be to merge this article into his wife's, as there's just not all that much to say about him, and that would address some of the BLP issues. But if it's between keeping and deletion, I would reluctantly say 'keep, but clean up so it reads less like a partisan hit job
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Attack page (WP:ATTACK)

Comment: As has been pointed out many times now, Marcus Bachmann has been the subject of significant coverage by |reliable sources which are independent of the subject.  There's not much more to say beyond that
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS)

Comment: 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
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N)

Comment: puzzling that one could take the view that the sources available on Bachmann do not add up to 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

Comment: per  (significant coverage in reliable sources). If you don't like the current balance, improve the article, don't delete it. And if you |don't like the balance in reliable sources, that's too bad. I don't like a lot of things, but that does not mean I get to delete the corresponding articles
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG||WP:IDONTLIKEIT)

Comment: the guy seems to be notable as the husband and an adviser to a prominent politician. The article is an obvious magnet for PR manipulations but I think strict enforcement of the  is enough, no need for the nuclear option here
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons (WP:BLP)