Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nate Miley

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 delete. Consensus that NPOL is not met, without sufficient non-local coverage to show notability in the subject's position. Creator hasn't noted addition of sourcing in a week. For clarity's sake, I should note that the presence of articles for other members of the Alameda County Board of Supervisors doesn't infer notability here - if nothing else, their articles may also not show notability. Nosebagbear (talk) 20:54, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nate Miley[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Doesn't qualify as per WP:NPOL, news coverage is all local and routine. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 04:36, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 04:36, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. County board of supervisors is not an "inherently" notable role that guarantees inclusion in Wikipedia, but this article is not actually demonstrating a reason to deem him more special than the norm. It certainly thinks it is, if you eyeball its length alone — but when you actually analyze the content, you notice that it's padded with a lot of trivia that isn't adding anything of noteworthy substance (an entire paragraph devoted just to the legal definition of "unincorporated community" has nothing whatsoever to do with making Miley notable, frex), and that it's referenced far, far too heavily to primary sources that aren't support for notability at all. You have to plod all the way to footnote #24 (skip past #23, it's a blog) just to get to the first real media outlet, and even that source isn't about Nate Miley, but merely namechecks his existence in the process of being about something else. And just two more hits after that, you're back in primary source territory again. As always, the notability test for politicians does not hinge on the ability to use the city or county government's own self-published website as technical verification that the subject exists — it hinges on the depth and geographic range of his media coverage, and there's not nearly enough of that here to make him more notable than the norm for a not automatically notable role. Bearcat (talk) 05:34, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, my name is Kendall Harris and I made the wikipedia page for Nate Miley. I have been working closely with Miley's Communications Advisor and receiving many updates from them. So I am a little confused on why I need to have sources that are not exclusively "local", when his role is not international, hence there would solely be domestic sources detailing his role. Also, I have gotten information from press releases so I am confused on how to cite them because they are a downloadable pdf sent to me directly (so if I could have guidance on that, that would be great!). I was also wondering if you could point out the "padded trivia" as I am not sure to what you are referring with this term. It also would be helpful if you could explain what "media" coverage is, as my understanding is that media coverage refers to articles on websites. Finally, again if you could explain "geographic range" as I am confused on how this applies to a member in public government who is solely responsible for a certain district. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kendallh2021 (talk • contribs) 06:02, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Well, for starters, the fact that his role is local rather than international places a much higher burden of proof onto your shoulders to justify why he needs to be in Wikipedia at all. We don't just keep articles about every single person in the world who holds office at the local city or county levels — to get a person into Wikipedia on that basis, you need to show a credible reason why he's significantly more special than most other county councillors, and it is not enough to just verify that he exists. That's why you need to show more than just local sources: because you need to show a reason why anybody outside Alameda County should care. We're an international encyclopedia, not an Alamedapedia, so the notability test for politicians at the city or county levels is not "does he exist": it's "is there a reason why somebody on the other side of the country or the world needs this article to exist?"

You can't honestly need somebody to actually define "media" for you: but media is not just any webpage that exists, it's newspapers and magazines and radio or television stations and books. It's not blogs, it's not the city's own website about itself, it's not the websites of organizations — it's stuff written by real journalists, in real media outlets that people consult when they want to know the news, independently of the subject.

Also, please familiarize yourself with our conflict of interest rules: working closely with the subject's communications advisor is exactly how not to make a Wikipedia article happen. Bearcat (talk) 06:20, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Bearcat. Thank you for the quick response and answers to my question. This is my first time crafting a Wikipedia Article so please excuse my lack of knowledge. Also, my apologies for the lack of specificity in regards to the phrase "working closely", I simply meant I am in the process of retrieving reputable sources (press releases) from them. So in order for my article to not get deleted, I am wondering what are the concrete steps I need to take? I understand that I need to prove his notability and I will also be in the process of that as he has pioneered many things and I am sure that I will be able to provide the sources and fulfill the other requirements Wikipedia says. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kendallh2021 (talk • contribs) 06:29, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Press releases from the subject aren't acceptable sourcing, because they aren't independent of the subject if he or his communications staff wrote the press releases themselves. You need journalism in media outlets, not press releases self-authored by the subject's own staff, to make a person notable enough for inclusion here. Bearcat (talk) 06:31, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ok Bearcat. Thank you for letting me know, I appreciate your diligence and willingness to explain these things to me. After, I retrieve reputable sources, how will I need to prove his notability and what steps will I need to take after that to avoid deletion. Also, what is the timeline like for nominations of deletion, ie. how much time will I get to retrieve these sources and then achieve the following steps to keep from page from being deleted? Thank you so much again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kendallh2021 (talk • contribs) 06:38, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Retain. He is a councilman of a major city. That should say it all. I know there are those who believe that city council members are not WP:Notable, but that's fallacious. Now, as to whether the article could be more neutral in tone, well, that's another matter. But leave it in, and help to improve it. Sincerely, BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 06:16, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia does not accept city or county councillors as "inherently" notable just because they exist. City and county councillors have to pass a much higher burden of significance than just being minimally sourceable as existing. Bearcat (talk) 06:20, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:14, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:22, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete While I previously worked to clean this page of gratuitous promotional material after it was listed on Wikipedia:Cleanup, I am sad to say this this page isn't fixable without WP:TNT. Only half of the current members of the Oakland City Council have pages, and I assume there is far more local and regional coverage of current incumbents than Miley, who served from 1992 to 2000. As others have previously mentioned, no source on Miley supports his significance outside of Alameda County. KidAd ⑊ SPEAK 09:37, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Thank you all for the feedback. I wanted to direct your attention to this wikipedia page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alameda_County_Board_of_Supervisors. As you can see, Nate Miley is listed there and other members have their own seperate Wikipedia page. I was wondering why they are allowed to but not Miley? Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kendallh2021 (talk • contribs)

Pages must be evaluated individually. I'm not saying that it's impossible for people in the same position to be notable, but they need to have accrued WP:RS coverage and meet WP:NPOL. KidAd ⑊ SPEAK 18:59, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi KidAd. OK, I just looked at Keith Carson's page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keith_Carson. And under the references and in the content there are no mentions of any significance of his role outside of Alameda County, so I am confused as to why you drew that point to the page about Miley yet there is no mentions of this on Keith Carson's page. Also, for the notable sources, I looked on Keith Carson's page and there is a website that has information provided by himself and other media sources. And in my page I included sources from and not limited to: The San Francisco Examiner, East Bay Times, East Bay Citizens, and SFGate. So what other sources do I need to consult in order to avoid my page being deleted and how should I prove his notability, if he doesn't have an international impact (similar to Keith Carson)? Thank you. Also this is similar to Wilma Chan, who also has her own Wikipedia page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wilma_Chan. Thanks again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kendallh2021 (talk • contribs) 20:40, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Again, Pages must be evaluated individually. We are talking about Nate Miley, so referencing similar pages is an example of the weak "other stuff exists" argument. KidAd ⑊ SPEAK 20:47, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi KidAd. Ok thank you for letting me know. Would I be able to add the reputable sources and this would allow the page to be published, also I forgot to mention this, but this was a first draft and it was my mistake to move it into Wikipedia as I meant to keep it in my sandbox. Hence, would I be allowed to move the article back into the sandbox, add the sources, and then move it back to Wikipedia and gain feedback from editors like yourself? Thank you again and my apologies for the misunderstanding. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kendallh2021 (talk • contribs) 23:35, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It is certainly possible for you to add the reputable sources before this AfD discussion is over, which I have seen happen, though I am not confident about that happening in this case. If you do add a significant amount of reliable, independent sources that address the subject in detail, leave a comment in this discussion noting that you have done so. KidAd ⑊ SPEAK 23:45, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the sources need to be in-depth about the article's subject. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 02:59, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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.