Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Milton Wolf (politician)


 * 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. --BDD (talk) 17:02, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Milton Wolf (politician)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Notability is not WP:INHERITED, even if the person he's inheriting it from is Obama. There is little coverage of Wolf, who fails WP:GNG. He also fails WP:POLITICIAN as a candidate seeking office without sufficient notability. – Muboshgu (talk) 11:53, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kansas-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 11:54, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 11:54, 23 October 2013 (UTC)


 * For now (unless and until he attains separate notability through GNG), merge and redirect to United States Senate election in Kansas, 2014. This article has a brief paragraph of sourced information about him, which can be added to the appropriate paragraph of the election article. --Arxiloxos (talk) 14:30, 23 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep Although this is the first time this article has been through the AFD process, it has already survived a both a suggested speedy deletion and proposed deletion. Just to get it all into the AFD record, I'm tempted to repost the long discussion from the article's talk page of why this article meets the required notability standard of 'significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject of the article,' but I'll spare everyone.  Suffice to say that (i) there are a lot of substantive news stories in reputable publications about this guy; and (ii) he's a regular columnist in a newspaper.  I'll be the first to acknowledge that the reason he's getting this coverage and has this soapbox at the Washington Times has a lot to do with the oddity of a Tea Party conservative being (distantly) related to President Obama, but although notability is not inherited on WP, the choice of these outlets to feature Wolf is still 'significant coverage...' for purposes of WP notability.  --JohnPomeranz (talk) 15:21, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
 * An article doesn't really "survive" CSD or PROD. This article wasn't a candidate for CSD, and PROD only requires one objection. I saw the talk page, and I see the argument for keeping this article, but I felt that given the issues with WP:INHERITED and the questions about GNG, a full discussion was warranted. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:41, 23 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep Subject passes WP:GNG. Of note, this is not Milton Wolf (ambassador) as referenced in this article but he appears to be a colunmnist for the Washington Post WOLF: Save America: Repeal Obamacare, he has been interviewed on Fox News President's Cousin Condemns Obamacare, and has generated regional news in the Wichita Eagle Hundreds attend tax day protests in Wichita.  The exposure in the press is reason enough in my view.  If you need more, because the subject seems to be writing op-ed pieces for a large publication that may be considered "controversial" in nature, it would also be worthwhile to maintain the article on the subject should any of his work ever be referenced in other articles on Wikipedia.--Paul McDonald (talk) 15:37, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 23:23, 23 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete per longstanding consensus for unelected political candidates not named Donald Trump, etc. A politician having been on TV or a person being a distant cousin of the President does not add to the case. Coverage is related to the ongoing campaign; fails GNG. Carrite (talk) 05:07, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Merge and redirect to United States Senate election in Kansas, 2014. While what I say above is true, Arxiloxos is more precise with the way these things are best handled. Carrite (talk) 05:10, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Redacting to yield to consensus. Carrite (talk) 15:39, 30 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep per the list of WP:GNG sources in the article talk page. He has achieved separate notability because the press is writing about him separately as a topic of discussion. It's not as if we (Wikipedia) are saying "he's Obama's cousin therefore he's notable", rather it is the press that is saying that - two different things. The INHERIT essay was not meant to trump WP:GNG and second-guess the press. Normally POLITICIAN would apply since he has not won office, but in this case as Obama's cousin he has additional factors and a lot of sourcing to sway my opinion we should keep for now. It can always be revisited later if nothing new happens. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 06:59, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep based on John Pomeranz's research as noted on the article talk page. Green Cardamom also has made inciteful analysis of the subject's notability. Bearian (talk) 19:02, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
 * A bit off topic... ...but the article's subject has just found and edited the page and put a request in his edit summary.  I don't want to engage with him, but it would probably be a good idea for someone to deal with the edit and to let him know about WP:AUTO.  (I'm starting to regret opening this can of worms, but I'm still a Keep for purposes of this discussion.)  --JohnPomeranz (talk) 12:31, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment good catch. I made some comments on the article talk page.--Paul McDonald (talk) 14:47, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Paul. --JohnPomeranz (talk) 16:08, 28 October 2013 (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.