It was a mistake, fixed this morning.

Then why isn't 'delete' a reasonable choice?

This is another wikibomb. This is someone who has a lot of media coverage at the moment, and there is a solid case to be made that they therefore meet all of WP's notability guidelines. I'm surprised that it wasn't kept. Although I don't think that would have been the right decision, it would not have ruled out a later merge. If it gets merged with Michele Bachmann, it means you will have an appropriately limited amount of coverage and you won't have a BLP that exists only as a means to malign someone.

This deletion will just lead to a DRV. That DRV may result in the article being kept, and makes the chance of merging less likely if that happens.

User Tarc and WP:BATTLEGROUND

Normally, this would just be something for WP:WQA, if not for the fact that Tarc has explicitly stated that he has a WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality in terms of this subject. The AfD for Marcus Bachmann closed as Delete not too long ago. A few users, including myself, were discussing on the talk page improvements that could be made to a userspace draft on the subject by focusing on sources that are separate from his wife. Then Tarc went and created a section here at the bottom. Statements he made include, "I will do my damn best to ensure that this sham of an article never again sees the light of day. You want a war? Game on." After A Quest for Knowledge pointed out the BATTLEGROUND policy, Tarc's response included, "The battleground was formed the moment the article was created, it is a gun-fight, and I'm making damn sure to bring something bigger than a knife. I didn't create it." You can read his full comments by going to the link I gave above. Tarc then hatted the discussion, saying, "Y'know, you're right, this serves no purpose. Actions will speak louder than words in the end. Mea culpa", but I don't believe this non-apology apology is rather sincere and it is likely he still plans on going on with his Battleground actions.

If I may quote something from offsite, from Wikipedia Review specifically, Tarc made a comment to me a few minutes ago here, after he made the comments above, where he said,

"I just put ta note on the AfD talk page, but here I can be a little more..colorful.

I will pull out as many stops as I need to to prevent you and your miserable cocksucking little cohorts from getting Bachmann back into article-space.

If this is the war you want to hang your little ARS beret on, then I guess we'll see which side has more clout. Maybe you will come out in the end, maybe not.

Either way, it will be costly.

You can interpret that however you like."

I think this shows quite clearly that he is intending to continue working in a Battleground manner. I'm not sure what the best course of action is here, perhaps a topic ban from the Marcus Bachmann and Michelle Bachmann articles? SilverserenC 03:06, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

P.S. I have taken screenshots of Tarc's statements on WR, so that the originals are available if he attempts to edit and change his comments. SilverserenC 03:06, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

3. DRV endorsed.
4. Marcus Bachmann no longer has a wikipedia-hosted hit piece, though it is now a redirect to the wife's page, which will bear watching so the section does not repeat the same problems.
5. Silver Seren enjoys his sour grapes.

All's well that ends well.

Tarc, I see you suckling more wiki juice from your god, jimmy bow Wales...

Oh, JoJo, I thought that just this one time you might be proud of me. I defended a conservative christian against a horde of card-carrying pinkos.

Time to propose the Michelle Obama article for deletion per http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:NOT...ty_is_inherited: "Family members of celebrities [sic] also must meet Wikipedia's notability criteria on their own merits – the fact that they have famous relatives is not, in and of itself, sufficient to justify an independent article.

I applaud your nuanced sense of humor.

I applaud your nuanced sense of humor.

I don't really get this deletion. Was his article really just an attack piece (I haven't had the privilege of seeing it). Because I think anyone else with this amount of press coverage (and a lot of people without it, cough, hand-egg players, cough, David Dixon, etc.) would be a shoo-in for an article.

I don't really get this deletion. Was his article really just an attack piece (I haven't had the privilege of seeing it). Because I think anyone else with this amount of press coverage (and a lot of people without it, cough, hand-egg players, cough, David Dixon, etc.) would be a shoo-in for an article.

I suppose if Michelle Bachmann wins anything during this campaign, even if it's just the Iowa caucuses, and Marcus Bachmann gets more press attention as a result, then they could probably justify it - it would still be an attack piece, but like you say, there are less "notable" people in Wikipedia. Until then, I'd say WP is better off not giving in to "tabloidism."

Blech. If the Bachmanns really gave a damn about Wikipedia, they'd get their lawyer to harass the WMF and get it all pulled. But they don't care.

So I can only figure that Wikipedia is past its use-by date, and is no longer regarded with any seriousness by political office-seekers.
Its aspersions to "mainstream acceptance" are finished. It's just another website run by trolls. Hah.

Shankbone has a copy here just in case Marcus Bachmann does something newsworthy and the article can be restored. The crux of the issue is that Bachmann's clinic has been alleged to practice "reparative therapy" (i.e., making gay people straight). Obviously that would never last in the Michele Bachmann article, so Marcus needs his own article if it is going to be mentioned in Wikipedia.

I was tempted to file an MfD the moment he swiped a copy of the article for his userspace, but there was enough eDrama going on as it was. I posted a msg on his page on Aug 3 and he said he wanted to work on it, so whatever. I'll mark it for deletion by Sept 3 if its still there then. ~~~~

I suspect that if it isn't in article space by then, it will end up there as a result of your deletion request. The more attention Michele Bachmann gets, the more attention Marcus Bachmann will get and the more attention Marcus Bachmann gets, the more chance of a gaffe that will be newsworthy. This one won't make much noise outside of left-leaning blogs and LGBT publications, but if Michele Bachmann continues to do well in straw polls, look for more Marcus Bachmann stories in the mainstream news planted by her opponents. Politics as usual.

You ought to be looking at influencing the content of the article rather than the existence of the article, but you are fighting a losing battle either way, in my very humble opinion.

Honestly, Bachmann has little chance of winnin the GOP nomination. She barely edged out wingnut Ron Paul in the cozy, friendly-to-extreme-conservatives Iowa straw poll. Once she hits the real states and real primaries, she's toast.

Maybe I'm missing something but I don't believe that your bog standard Americans is dumb enough to elect someone like Bachmann or Palin.

Maybe I'm missing something but I don't believe that your bog standard Americans is dumb enough to elect someone like Bachmann or Palin. They don't really exist outside of their core dumbfuck, trailerpark, pawned, electorate.

The energy that the left seem to pour into deriding them just seems like wasted effort.

I think the mainstream democrats are really praying for a Bachmann candidacy.

Maybe I'm missing something but I don't believe that your bog standard Americans is dumb enough to elect someone like Bachmann or Palin. They don't really exist outside of their core dumbfuck, trailerpark, pawned, electorate.

The energy that the left seem to pour into deriding them just seems like wasted effort.

I think the mainstream democrats are really praying for a Bachmann candidacy.