Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tim Nolan (Trump campaign official)


 * 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. Divided opinions about notability, and the article has been heavily edited during AfD, making the applicability of earlier opinions questionable. Those who want to delete it can renominate it once it stabilizes.  Sandstein  09:42, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Tim Nolan (Trump campaign official)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Subject fails notability as a criminal per WP:PERPETRATOR policy. — JFG talk 11:04, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep. Clear keep due to significant coverage in reliable sources which addresses the subject directly and in detail, per WP:GNG. Additionally, he clearly meets WP:NPOL #2 ("Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage"). Also, he is covered in reliable sources in relation to his trial because he was already notable in his own right in his home state as a Republican politician, Tea Party guy and Trump campaign official +++. --Tataral (talk) 11:52, 13 May 2017 (UTC) ''(Note regarding the title: This article was originally titled "Tim Nolan (Trump campaign official)" but later moved to "Tim Nolan (political figure)". It has now been moved back to "Tim Nolan (Trump campaign official)" by User:DHeyward. There appears to be consensus, among everyone else than User:DHeyward, that it should be titled "Tim Nolan (political figure)" --Tataral (talk) 13:28, 15 May 2017 (UTC))


 * I'm not convinced. Do you have any sources covering him as a "major local political figure" prior to the recent criminal charges? — JFG talk 14:07, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
 * The article includes ten references, including from Reuters and non-US media, which cover him directly and in detail. --Tataral (talk) 16:22, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
 * All those sources report on the recent criminal arraignment. Do you have any source covering this individual for his political activities or anything else prior to this affair? In other words, was he notable as a politician before being notable as a criminal? (which he is not by WP standards) — JFG talk 00:26, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, there are some. For example, Former judge files suit over KKK photo (June 10, 2016); Bevin appointment rescinded after Facebook slur (May 19, 2016). bd2412  T 00:34, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions.  Jupitus Smart  12:47, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions.  Jupitus Smart  12:47, 13 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment. I think the battle against partisan editing is futile, but I hope the more objective editors here will a) consider changing the article title to Timothy Nolan (with the appropriate change in redirect), Timothy L. Nolan, or Tim Nolan (political figure) and b) take a closer look at the sourcing. Do we really want a Daily Kos article written by "Black n Ghosty" in the article? -Location (talk) 13:29, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep and expand but change the name as proposed by Location, preferably to Tim Nolan (political figure). bd2412  T 14:00, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete I'm unable to find anything on this individual separate from the allegations against them, which means the article is verging on WP:BLP1E territory. As it is, WP:PERPETRATOR is clear on this, such individuals "should be the subject of a Wikipedia article only if one of the following applies:"
 * "1.The victim of the crime is a renowned national or international figure, including, but not limited to, politicians or celebrities"
 * "2.The motivation for the crime or the execution of the crime is unusual—or has otherwise been considered noteworthy—such that it is a well-documented historic event."
 * None of those apply here. The alleged victim is not a renowned national figure and there is nothing especially notable about either the motivation or execution of the crime. Valenciano (talk) 16:29, 13 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment (was delete) "The 70-year-old was appointed to chair Trump's electoral campaign in Kentucky's Campbell County last year" . This is generally an honorary title and not a sign of his having an important role in the Trump campaign.  As a criminal, he's not notable either. Power~enwiki (talk) 19:59, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Irrespective of his role in any political campaign, the headline of a reliable source that reads "Former district judge charged with human trafficking. See WikiProject United States courts and judges/Notability: State trial court judges "are not inherently notable, but holding such a position is strong evidence of notability that can be established by other indicia of notability". A state district court judge (in Kentucky, the counties are the districts of the state) who has later been reported as being charged with a felony is likely notable as state district court judges go. bd2412  T 00:12, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete It fails multiple tests including BLP1E, BLPCRIME and the very basis our core BLP poliicies are founded. The article was shamelessly created to pile-on Trump issues even though the event is completely unrelated.  It's shameful.  --DHeyward (talk) 03:47, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
 * He's clearly notable under both WP:GNG and as a local political figure under WP:NPOL #2 and as a judge under WikiProject United States courts and judges/Notability as noted by BD2412. When he's notable under no less than 3 other notability guidelines, BLPCRIME is of no relevance. --Tataral (talk) 12:06, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep under the condition the aspects that actually make this person notable (per Tataral and bd2412) are added to the article and what is there now given proper weight and the article renamed per discussion above. As it stands now, the article is unacceptable. Stevie is the man!  Talk • Work 12:54, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Cmt: Note that the article has been significantly rewritten and expanded at this point in the discussion. Material that wasn't previously included include his 2016 attempt to replace Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell as a delegate to the 2016 Republican National Convention (due to McConnell's lack of support for Trump), his appointment a year ago by Governor Matt Bevin as one of the four members of the Kentucky Boxing and Wrestling Commission which was created by the Governor at the same time (a state-level office) and his subsequent removal from office days later when a photograph of him allegedly in the robes of the Ku Klux Klan emerged, his previous lawsuit against a news website over the KKK scandal, and various other details related to his career and political activities. Several state media in Northern Kentucky have noted that he is a well-known, outspoken and controversial political figure there (i.e. before the recent criminal charges that have received international media attention, e.g. from Reuters, not normally lavished on Kentucky politicians). Thus his notability is based on
 * being a former state district court judge which in itself is "strong evidence of notability that can be established by other indicia of notability" per WikiProject United States courts and judges/Notability
 * his political activity in Kentucky, including his appointment to a state-level office, his involvement in the Tea Party/Republican Party in Kentucky as one of Trump's most avid supporters there (he owed his appointment in the Trump campaign to Donald Trump personally having noticed him early in 2016), and his involvement in several political controversies, per WP:NPOL #2
 * His general notability per WP:GNG. There is no doubt that he has received "significant coverage" (including from international, non-US media) which addresses him directly and in detail, most recently in relation to the (very serious) criminal charges against him.
 * In fact his career as a judge combined with the coverage of him in relation to the criminal charges against him would probably alone be enough to satisfy WikiProject United States courts and judges/Notability (it doesn't happen every day that a judge faces 100 years in prison), even without his political activity. And his political activity, including an appointment to a state-level office, is by itself also enough to establish notability. --Tataral (talk) 14:32, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment. The article needs serious fact checking, because it is counter to WP:RS at the moment.
 * 1) The primary source for much of the article is a Raw Story post that was sourced (according to Raw Story) from this article in The Northern Kentucky Enquirer.
 * 2) There are repeated references to "state media" in the article. Which state media? I can't find any source that clarifies what is meant by this.
 * 3) The article says the reason that Nolan was dismissed from the Kentucky boxing board by the governor is due to his alleged Ku Klux Klan garb photograph posted on Facebook. I checked the WP article source for that (Bevin appointment rescinded after Facebook slur), and could find no confirmation that that was the reason. Instead, this was all I could find in the source: "The reason, says Nolan, a retired attorney and district court judge: He posted on his Facebook page that Kentucky's respected and well-liked Chief Justice John D. Minton Jr. is an “asshole.”" The part about the Ku Klux Klan photo is also sourced to Nolan himself, but not corroborated or denied by anyone in the article: "Nolan, a Tea Party activist in Northern Kentucky, said Bevin’s office first raised questions about his appointment because of a photograph that purports to show him in a Ku Klux Klan outfit. Nolan said the photo is bogus and that political foes in Campbell County first circulated it in an unsuccessful bid to keep him from being county chairman of the Trump campaign. Nolan said he persuaded Bevin’s director of boards and commissions, Brett Gaspard, that the picture was a non-issue but the governor’s deputy chief of staff, Adam Meier, told a mutual friend, retired state Sen. Katie Stine, that the Facebook post disqualified him. “She told me he said that there was no way that anybody who called the chief justice an asshole can be an appointee of the governor,” Nolan said. Stine said Nolan's account is not accurate, thought she declined to elaborate; Gaspard and Meier did not respond to emails...." Who knows if Nolan is telling the truth or not, but the article language needs to reflect the fact that it is alleged but not confirmed at this point, or better yet, not mention it at all.
 * We need to avoid slander and libel for subjects of BLPs. The comment made earlier by DHeyward reflects that sentiment as well. (I participated in the RfC for the BLP for Joe Lonsdale, and learned about being careful then.) If the article is kept, the title must be changed from Tim Nolan (Trump campaign official) to something more accurately descriptive, e.g. Tim Nolan (political figure) or Timothy L. Nolan as suggested by Location.--FeralOink (talk) 19:58, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment. After having a second look, there is NO reference to the Ku Klux Klan in the Raw Story article that is used as a source. However, the alleged Ku Klux Klan garb is attributed to Nolan in both the lead and the body of the article. I am going to remove that right now, as it is wrong and slanderous to say that given the sources cited.--FeralOink (talk) 20:04, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
 * The Raw Story article is one of 17 sources that were used in the article. Two different Raw Story articles (of which one mentioned the KKK story) got confused in the editing process, and it certainly didn't help that an editor suddenly removed two thirds of the references due to alleged "overlinking". But the KKK story was covered in other sources cited in the article, including a source specifically focused on his lawsuit over the KKK photo. I also find it somewhat odd that you argue that the article title must be changed from "Tim Nolan (Trump campaign official)" (which is not and was not its title at the time you wrote the comment) to Tim Nolan (political figure) (which is already its current title and had been for some time at the time you wrote your comment). --Tataral (talk) 20:15, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
 * The reason why I said Tim Nolan (Trump campaign official) was the title of the article was because that is what the AfD says at the top of this webpage and AfD request. That was the title of the article as of yesterday, 13 May 2017, so I wouldn't describe the change as having been "for some time", as it is recent, i.e. in the past 24 hours. Given that, I don't know why you would "find it somewhat odd" that I would make the comment I did. Finally, please do not accuse me of "arguing". --FeralOink (talk) 20:36, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
 * There are 8 sources used in the article, not 17. Two of the eight sources are to the questionable "Raw Story". Another is to "bluegrassmama.com" which hardly counts as WP:RS. The same is probably true for a fourth source, politicalhaze.com. So four of the eight sources are questionable.--FeralOink (talk) 20:36, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I just edited the article to remove the verbiage about the KKK photo being published by "state media" and replaced that with a more accurate description. GOPfacts.org is a political opposition website. It is NOT state media! This is the alleged photograph, which does not belong in the article. (Nolan would have needed to lose about 100 pounds to be the person in that photo, but that is WP:SYNTH on my part, so I will say no more.)--FeralOink (talk) 20:29, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
 * No, that's a blatantly false claim. There were 17, not 8 sources used in the article that I wrote. As is clear from the article history, one editor has insisted on removing a bunch of sources, including several Associated Press stories, due to alleged "overlinking". I strongly disagree with that removal, and it certainly cannot be used to claim that there is a lack of sources in this discussion.
 * Regarding the KKK photo, the reason it's relevant is not the photo itself, but its central role in his removal from the state commission to which he had been appointed, and in his later lawsuit as well. The article doesn't claim the KKK guy was him either. --Tataral (talk) 20:33, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Look at the article! I am NOT making blatantly false claims. There are 8, that is, EIGHT sources in the article at the present time. I didn't remove any sources. This article for deletion discussion is based on the reality of the article, not on your conjectures about what you think the article content should be. Please stop making all these accusatory remarks to me. You have described my behavior as odd, argumentative and making blatantly false claims in the course of less than hour. I responded politely to each of your claims, and refuted them with facts. You are being hostile to me. Please stop!--FeralOink (talk) 20:41, 14 May 2017 (UTC)


 * You are making a false claim based on WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. The article includes 17 18 references, not 8. The fact that some of them were briefly only found in the article history is not my fault or responsibility. Anyone discussing the sourcing of the article needs to take all the provided references into account and not falsely pretend that there are only 8 references which form the basis of this discussion, especially after they have been explicitly made aware of the fact that the article included more than twice the amount of references they claimed and that some had been removed by a different editor who objected to the number of references. --Tataral (talk) 20:45, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

The Daily Mail and Perez Hilton are not WP:RS. See in particular the WP:DAILYMAIL RfC which rencently concluded: — JFG talk 21:47, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
 * The Daily Mail is a major, well-established British newspaper with a huge circulation of 1.5 million. I'm not particularly fond of the Daily Mail as a newspaper, but there is nothing in the article by Matthew Wright that seems dubious or objectionable; on the contrary it's detailed and seems rather solid and well researched, and its content is based on coverage in local media. In any event, it's one of the 20 references, with other references covering the same material as the material covered in the Daily Mail article including a Reuters story, two Associated Press stories and several other sources. The Daily Mail is not used to make any sensational claims; for the purposes of this discussion it would mainly serve (with other sources) to highlight the international interest in Nolan's case. --Tataral (talk) 22:01, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Certainly the Daily Mail is a major widely-circulated newspaper. I was just pointing out that the Wikipedia community recently decided to avoid citing it except in rare circumstances. We may or may not personally agree with this stance but we should respect the global consensus. I assume that you were not aware of this decision when adding it to the sources. In any case, a lot of the sources simply repeat the criminal charges, so we can safely trim references to 2 or 3 sources per WP:OVERCITE. Piling up 10 references for one fact tends to give readers the impression that the asserted fact is not well-supported, which may run contrary to the author's intent. — JFG talk 22:45, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
 * This seems to stray a bit far from the discussion in chief. The fundamental issue here is whether the assertions made in reliable sources support notability. Under the notability standards set forth by the U.S. Courts and Judges WikiProject, I believe that they do. I could care less about other notability guidelines, or quite frankly about the subject's position with respect to the Trump campaign (although I see that as an additional point of notability building on his years as a judge). I get the sense that there are some editors who want this article deleted because of the subject's Trump connection, which doesn't speak at all to the fact that a former long-serving state court judge later charged with a substantial sex-trafficking crime is likely notable, irrespective of what activities he has engaged in other than those. bd2412  T 23:04, 14 May 2017 (UTC)


 * I would agree to trim the references in that section to 2 or 3 when this AfD discussion has ended. We don't really need to retain the Daily Mail reference either, as it isn't used to support anything that's not already supported by other sources in the article.--Tataral (talk) 23:05, 14 May 2017 (UTC)


 *  Speedy Delete per WP:TNT. This discussion is spiraling out of control and I see no way to repair the article as written. Power~enwiki (talk) 21:00, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete. I concur with Power~enwiki. This is my final contribution to this AfD discussion.--FeralOink (talk) 21:07, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment the article has been renamed to Tim Nolan (political figure). With that change, I support keeping the discussion open a full 7 days unless the quality of discourse degrades further. I still strongly support deleting the article as per my previous vote. Power~enwiki (talk) 21:21, 14 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Note that User:DHeyward has just deleted vast parts of the article and most of its sources, including the very well sourced charges against him and nearly all the material discussed here, with a false edit summary claiming multiple Associated Press, Reuters etc. articles to support one sentence listing his charges constitute "poorly sourced materisl", in an edit that nearly amounts to a Page blanking. Whether the material is relevant is for this discussion to decide, it's not up to User:DHeyward to semi-blank the article. The most recent version of the article is found here. User:DHeyward also insists on the title "Tim Nolan (Trump campaign official)" rather than "Tim Nolan (political figure)". I suggest the article is restored and moved back to Tim Nolan (political figure). --Tataral (talk) 23:18, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I reverted the deletion (with some moderation of the material), and it was re-deleted, which makes this a likely 3RR case. bd2412  T 02:12, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete. Fails to pass GNG.Zigzig20s (talk) 02:24, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep as above votes to keep. Page after page of news sources, with new ones daily. The latest, that because of his past as a judge this is kicked up to the state to prosecute directly. Seems unusual and high level. Detail here.  Hyperbolick (talk) 13:02, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Local crime coverage in a local newspaper is not unusual. Power~enwiki (talk) 20:33, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Reuters? Plus another source says this has "shocked Northern Kentucky" - sounds beyond local. Another in the next state over, "case has caused major shock throughout the Campbell County political status mean, where Nolan was outspoken and active." Hyperbolick (talk) 21:22, 17 May 2017 (UTC)


 * There is a Reuters article, several Associated Press stories (via U.S. News & World Report), in fact most of the sources are national or state level sources, not local ones. British newspapers have written about the guy, and they rarely write about Kentucky local politicians. In any event, he is a well established political figure in Northern Kentucky, and has been appointed to a state office by the Governor and been handpicked by the guy who likes to boast about his inauguration crowd size to head his campaign in a reasonably large county. --Tataral (talk) 17:35, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
 * "hand-picked" - I disagree with that assessment and believe it to be false. Presidential candidates (especially ones as gregarious as Trump) don't generally pick people to head their campaign at the per-county level; they rely on state-level coordinators to hand those positions out. Power~enwiki (talk) 02:59, 21 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep. I believe that there is enough coverage that the subject of the article meets WP:GNG. With that said, there are some serious problems with POV and possibly some BLP vios that need to be addressed.  I agree wholeheartedly that the article title is poor and should be changed to something such as Tim Nolan (political figure) as has been suggested by Location and bd2412 since the article title itself combined with the majority content (criminal activity) has a strong anti-Trump political slant, whether it is intended or not.  I believe that the article could be expanded and improved, which would fix many of the problems that have been noted by those who wish to Delete.  — HiB2Bornot2B  talk Go Big Blue! 17:58, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:58, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kentucky-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:58, 21 May 2017 (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.