Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ron Miller (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   no consensus. T. Canens (talk) 17:56, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Ron Miller (politician)

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Self promotion page, heavy on the WP:COI, of a non-elected Politician - fails WP:Politician Mtking (talk) 02:33, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete Fails WP:POLITICIAN and no other convincing claim of notability is made. Cullen328 (talk) 03:01, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep - I actually sourced and wrote most of this article. It may require some cleanup, but certainly not deletion. Work can be done on this to remove any COI, because the article does show notability.  American Eagle  ( talk ) 03:26, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Excuse the blunt question, but for what is he notable for ? What has he done that is worthy of encyclopaedic note. Mtking (talk) 04:49, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Question American Eagle, please take a look at your own article title, which includes the word "politician", and then please read WP:POLITICIAN. Now, please explain how the subject of this article meets that notability guideline? Thank you. Cullen328 (talk) 04:56, 31 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep normally, defeated candidates for state office are not necessarily notable, but he meets the WP:GNG by having significant coverage in two extensive articles in the Washington Post, an unquestioned RS for politics. (I don't think the GNG is all that useful a guideline in all cases, but I think the consensus is to use it when it does apply. This situation, with multiple possibly minor careers, is as clear a case for using it as any , and since it does   remain a guideline,   we should use it when it does apply.)   DGG ( talk ) 13:36, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Response The Washington Post coverage is entirely typical of the coverage that newspapers give to political candidates running within their media market. If this sort of routine news coverage makes unelected politicians notable, then we can just throw out our established notability guideline WP:POLITICIAN, and prepare ourselves for a torrent of articles about unelected political candidates.  I think that is a bad idea.  Cullen328 (talk) 23:11, 31 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Weak keep. I agree that the subject falls short of WP:POLITICIAN, but he gets to meet WP:GNG (even taking into account that most of the coverage owes its existence to the 2006 election, which he lost). I found a couple more sources  , I'm not sure about the reliability for www.onenewsnow.com but it seems independent (though biased). There were other articles behind paywalls that might or might not have something of worth, maybe they're just duplicates of the ones already here, but the snippets from Google did brought up his name. And there is also this... oh wait, no, disregard that one - frankie (talk) 01:25, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete. Fails WP:POLITICIAN and WP:GNG. All media coverage is in regards to his running for office (which failed), and I only see one Post article  with significant coverage of Miller, which is short of the "multiple" sources generally required by GNG. SheepNotGoats (talk) 15:30, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions.  — -- Cirt (talk) 17:09, 3 June 2011 (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.