Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rob Miller (South Carolina politician) (2nd nomination)


 * 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. Courcelles 01:49, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Rob Miller (South Carolina politician)
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )


 * Delete. Person not notable for anything except running for office. Captain in USMC = nn. If he is elected, he will be notable. Appears to be political WP:SPAM for candidate. (reconsider Afd). Student7 (talk) 21:16, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: He did not simply "run for office". He was twice-nominated to be the candidate from the Democratic Party for United States House of Representatives. -- Cirt (talk) 21:18, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. Satisfies WP:NOTE, has received significant coverage from independent and reliable secondary sources. -- Cirt (talk) 21:17, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Update: Still continues to get significant coverage from multiple reliable secondary sources. Have done a bit more research, and so far, expanded the article yet a bit more, with over 10 additional sources . Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 22:14, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Carolina-related deletion discussions.  —-- Cirt (talk) 22:17, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions.  —-- Cirt (talk) 22:17, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions.  —-- Cirt (talk) 22:17, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions.  —-- Cirt (talk) 22:17, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete or redirect The first AfD proceeded on the false premise that satisfying GNG is a guarantee of notability. It isn't. It only creates a presumption of notability. We have specific standards for politicians and this subject clearly fails them. The presumption of notability is, in my view, rebutted by the fact that just about all of the coverage emanates from the candidacies and the community's view is that mere candidates are not notable. He's merely a low-mid ranking military officer who happens to have been on a ballot in a seat held by the opposing party. I am fully aware that I'm arguing for the deletion of an article about a person who meets the GNG. That's entirely consistent with the GNG's status as a guideline and the meaning of presumption of notability. --Mkativerata (talk) 22:24, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment: The article satisfies point (3) of WP:POLITICIAN (as also noted from the prior AFD). Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 22:30, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Point 3 says (appropriately) "can still be notable", not "are notable" - it's a matter of judgment not a guarantee. No-one is guaranteed notability by the GNG. --Mkativerata (talk) 22:44, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Agreed, one can still be notable through GNG. One must not meet all points of all sections of WP:NOTE and all sub-sub-guidelines, in order to have an existing article on Wikipedia. :) -- Cirt (talk) 22:46, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
 * No that's just misrepresenting my position by exaggeration. When one guideline says "yes" and the other says "no", it's a matter of balancing the two. The "yes" isn't a guaranteed pass; the "no" isn't a guaranteed fail. Notability isn't a mathematical equation either way.--Mkativerata (talk) 22:48, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
 * That is a fair assessment. Neither one is exclusionary or the be-all-and-end-all. :) -- Cirt (talk) 22:48, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep  per the significant coverage. As noted by Cirt the article has expanded with  reliable sources since second nomination.--Jmundo (talk) 22:55, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep per the significant coverage. There is absolutely no reason to delete this. General note: If an individual is determined to be notable only for a single event, then the individual's article is redirected to that event's article and the material itself is merged into the election article, including photos, sections, External links and so forth. We Do Not Delete. Flatterworld (talk) 23:00, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep per the significant coverage. He's running against Joe "You Lie!" Wilson, and as a result has received both substantial national media attention and substantial fundraising success. He's also led Wilson in at least some of the polls. This is a nationally significant race. If he loses, we can reconsider his notability then. JTRH (talk) 23:13, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Not disputing your argument - just noting that notability isn't "temporary". So if we make the call that he's notable now, he can't become non-notable later. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mkativerata (talk • contribs)
 * Keep. Passes GNG.  Moreover, a major party nominee for a major political office is just the sort of person who should have a bio here.--Arxiloxos (talk) 23:36, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep - The provision of a neutral venue for biographies of active politicians is one of Wikipedia's great public services. People DO come here looking for this information. This example is particularly well referenced, I add. Carrite (talk) 02:05, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep (as article author--thanks for notifying me). There has been substantial coverage of both Miller's first and second campaigns, which is sufficient indication that he is notable.  Let me also dispute strongly that this is political spam and request a little assumption of good faith.  Miller runs in South Carolina and I live in the midwest--I have no connection to him. Chick Bowen 02:14, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I should have said "original author"—Cirt and Flatterworld have done a lot of great work on this that attests to the depth of coverage. Chick Bowen 03:02, 3 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete not yet. There is general consensus that as election candidates at this level are not notable. He may be notable if and when he gets elected. So far, what we have seen is no more no less the sort of coverage they receive for just standing - general interest in the election campaign. Ohconfucius  ¡digame! 04:46, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree that candidates for the house are not generally notable; obviously, the "keep" argument here depends on the idea that Miller is atypical. I think that national coverage of his role in the fallout of the Wilson scandal combined with the greatly increased local attention caused by an unusually competitive race in a politically one-sided district separates him from the usual candidates.  I also don't think the "crystal ball" clause applies, since the article makes clear that Miller is unlikely to win, and indeed one of the things that has attracted notice about him is the strength of his out-of-district support given the long-shot circumstances.  It is possible to garner notability in the course of losing an election. Chick Bowen 20:41, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Unlikely to win? He has led in several polls, though I don't know without further research how current they are. JTRH (talk) 16:55, 4 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep Major party candidate for national-level office with a good chance of election, plus previous history of the same, with significant press coverage. Ray  Talk 15:46, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment. And if he doesn't there's always two years from now, and two years after that... (Editors tried to delete this two years ago for same reason).Student7 (talk) 22:29, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Obvious Keep--  major party candidate for US Congress??   Of course he's notable.  --Alecmconroy (talk) 22:32, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment Reading the above, it sounds like this specific race is a distinctly notable event, more than this guy is a notable politician. If this was a first-time run, then I would very strongly be arguing for delete (by way of converting the article to being about the race, with him as a sub-section) - but since it's apparently his second time around, he is perhaps 'notable' for more than a single event, and if so, should get his own article (just). See WP:INDISCRIMINATE under "who's who".  ‒ Jaymax✍ 01:45, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment: I really dislike the entire argument that someone is inherently notable or non-notable because they belong to a class or category. Notability should be based on whether the subject has received significant coverage in reliable sources.  Generally, I would expect reliable sources to give a lot of significant coverage to nominees from major political parties, and generally I would expect very little coverage of nominees from minor or fringe parties... but there will always be exceptions (in both directions) to this generalization.  So the issue here should not be "Is a nominee from a major party inherently notable?" but should instead be "Has there there been significant coverage in reliable sources of this particular nominee?" Blueboar (talk) 15:48, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep per above. Wikipedia is not paper, we can afford to keep this, it meets GNG and is well-referenced. It will serve as a valuable reference for those researching political races. And a lot indicates he will continue to be covered by media. Danski14(talk) 18:01, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep per above.  This is not a minor party candidate; this is a serious race drawing secondary coverage. Racepacket (talk) 01:24, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep per Cirt and Blueboar. Bearian (talk) 03:49, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Redirect to United States House of Representatives elections in South Carolina, 2010. There is some significant newspaper coverage, but virtually all of it is primarily about his opponsent Joe Wilson - with Miller piggybacking onto Wilson's notoriety. Contrary to some statements made here, major party candidates for congress are NOT automatically notable - not if they have never held office or otherwise achieved notability, and not if the only coverage is about the election rather than about them. See WP:POLITICIAN: "Just being an elected local official, or an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability, although such people can still be notable if they meet the primary notability criterion of "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject of the article".... In the case of candidates for political office who do not meet this guideline, the general rule is to redirect to an appropriate page covering the election or political office sought in lieu of deletion." See also WP:Common outcomes: "Candidates for a national legislature/parliament or other national office are not viewed as having inherent notability." It could be argued that Miller has received significant coverage and thus rates a "keep", but he definitely does NOT rate an article simply for being a major party candidate for congress. Such articles get deleted here all the time. --MelanieN (talk) 00:29, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Relatively few of us are arguing that candidates are automatically notable; in fact I said above that I don't believe they are. If you read my argument, Cirt's, and others, you will see that we have indeed addressed why Miller is considerably more notable than the average candidate for office. I also would question your reading of the coverage; much of the coverage is about Miller's remarkable fundraising, which is undeniably a fact about him.  Yes, that fundraising is assumed to have a relationship to Wilson's actions, but that doesn't make the coverage really about Wilson rather than about Miller; if I write a newspaper story about how pollution is affecting brook trout, it's a story about fish as much as or more than it is about pollution.  Chick Bowen 02:15, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. Does not fail WP:POLITICIAN because he passes the GNG. Specifically, he has won a Democratic nomination twice, so WP:BLP1E, the philosopical underpinning of the WP:POLITICIAN discounting of winning a single primary, does not apply. 141.156.160.217 (talk) 17:07, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep as here, when we actually look for sources is will invariably be found that a major party nominee for a US senate seat is notable, by the GNG, and confirmed by common sense. The positions are of such enduring political significance, & therefore attract extensive national coverage of both possible senators. (This probably holda for the House of Representatives & state Governors, but the case is really clear for Senators.).     DGG ( talk ) 01:11, 9 September 2010 (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.