Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Morton Brilliant (2nd nomination)

Morton Brilliant

This WP:COATRACK of a minor Democratic operative has a severe WP:BLP and WP:ONEEVENT problem. Also, WP:NOT#NEWS. (NB my potential conflict of interest: this is a fellow Brandeis alum, albeit one of the opposite party. I don't know the man.) There are a handful of Google news hits not related to this event that quote Brilliant in passing, but it would be pure wikipuffery to string those together into an article. Anything really notable here is already in History_of_Wikipedia#Controversies. THF (talk) 00:56, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete doesn't seem individually notable and no obvious redirect candidate. JJL (talk) 01:15, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I added a ref to show that he was alredy well known nationally before the story broke. DGG (talk) 01:30, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment that's helpful, but still it's an opinion piece. I only found one gnews hit for his name [1], and his classmates.com web page is on the first page of ghits for him. For someone well-known I'd expect more. He seems best known by bloggers. JJL (talk) 01:51, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with JJL, these references don't sway me. --Crusio (talk) 16:06, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment. That footnote is the very epitome of Wikipuffery. There are literally dozens of political operatives of both parties who would be "notable" by that standard. Taylor Griffin is a redlink, and he actually is nationally known. To repeat: a glancing mention in a 32,000-circulation newspaper opinion column about a different subject does not create notability. The standard is significant independent coverage. THF (talk) 02:50, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

it seems to be an opinion piece by a regular political commentator for a major newspaper in that region, and that counts as a RS for opinion. Of course there are dozens of political operatives who are notable by this standard. There might even be hundreds. Lets get them in Wp, if we have sources. NOT PAPER. DGG (talk) 03:19, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

32,000 circulation is by definition "not major." And a single sentence in that paper is not "significant independent coverage." Wikipedia is WP:NOT a directory, either, as your argument seems to assume that the encyclopedia is supposed to index everyone who has ever been mentioned in a newspaper. THF (talk) 03:26, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd advise not getting too caught up in your own AfD, THF. Let the process proceed! JJL (talk) 13:01, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:42, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:43, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per DGG. The article is not complimentary to him, but that's a function of his own behavior, not any bias in the article's description of him. He is reasonably prominent in multiple major statewide campaigns -- more than satisfies the requirements of WP:POLITICIAN. Ray (talk) 18:53, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, it's a reliably sourced opinion that he was "nationally well known" before the 2006 incident. But what does that prove? Even if it were objectively true that he was nationally well known, that still wouldn't translate to Wikipedia:Notability. Notability is neither fame nor importance. The opinion piece fails to show notability because it doesn't discuss Brilliant in any significant way.
The bulk of the article's sourcing pertains, of course, not to the subject's series of jobs as campaign manager, but rather to his newsworthy little bit of mischief at Wikipedia in 2006. Wikipedia is not Wikinews, and this article is a BLP1E. Wikipedia can flirt with certain types of coatrack articles where notability is dubious, but when it comes to BLP's, standards must be strictly adhered to. This biography of a non-notable living person must be hidden from view using the "delete" tool, unless better and more substantial sources are introduced that actually demonstrate Wikipedia:Notability. 160.39.213.152 (talk) 03:49, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Apart from the sources related to his Wikipedia adventure (which is just one event covered elsewhere), there are only two sources: one to Sourcewatch (a wiki and therefore not a [[WP:RS|reliable source) and one to the above-mentioned opinion piece found by DGG. The latter is actually not about Brilliant, but about Cathy Cox and only mentions Brilliant in passing. Does not meet WP:N. --Crusio (talk) 11:56, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Directly WP related for one event -- but he is notable for other actions as well in his life. [2], [3] establish fully sufficient notability. A lot more than most have, in fact. Collect (talk) 15:22, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also mentions by NYT in [4], [5], [6] , [7] thus making him notable as a spokesman, and as for his own opinions as well. How many cites does one need? <g> Collect (talk) 15:29, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not many, if any are about him. Those are all passing mentions of him acting as a spokesperson for others. In the books he appears on one page each time--a passing reference. Where has he bee noted rather than merely mentioned? JJL (talk) 15:33, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

An interesting standard -- his own particular opinions make it into the NYT and you cavil that it is "only" a single line at a time? Amazingly enough, the same cavil works for almost every cite on Obama in the NYT before he ran for President <g>. And applies to every person who has been a press secretary -- many of whom are, indeed, found in WP. Add to that the WP affair, and he leaps over the "notability barrier" with ease. Aide to Senator Hollings, Governor Hodges and more -- all well before the WP affair. The claim, recall, was that he was notable for ONLY ONE thing - that is the basis for the AfD after all is said and done. Once that claim is broken, the rationale for the AfD fails. And note that "press secretary" is sufficiently notable for a large number of WP articles in the first place - even when they have never made the NYT. End of cavils I trust <g> Collect (talk) 16:42, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You have misunderstood JJL's "cavil." The problem with the sources you link to is not that they only devote a "single line" to Brilliant. The problem is they say nothing at all about him that can be used to write a Wikipedia article about him. What you call JJL's "interesting standard" is, in fact, Wikipedia's standard. By contrast, the standard you apparently seek to apply--that press secretaries to notable people are automatically notable--is disfavored. 160.39.213.152 (talk) 17:31, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]