Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nick Dranias

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. --BDD (talk) 19:40, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Nick Dranias

Nick Dranias (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

Article is little more than autobiographical WP:SPAM. Sources are mostly primary and or from politically biased sources and fail WP:RS. Article was previously tagged PROD which was removed along with various maintenance tags. Ad Orientem (talk) 19:14, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

As I see it, the subject might possibly be notable. Is someone who is a director at a reasonably important think tank, who (if I read the article correctly) litigated a case that went onto the Supreme Court, notable by Wikipedia standards? I don't know the answer to that. If so, then the next step is to seek good references and modify the article. That's something that I can help with. But if a person with these attributes does not meet Wikipedia guidelines for notability, then the article should be deleted. James Cage (talk) 21:21, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Orientem, there is no basis for your claim that sources are from "politically biased" sources. What political bias specifically do you perceive? Also, how can it be simultaneously autobiographical and from politically biased sources. The sourcing was provided because James Cage (I believe) previously questioned whether I was well-known or published. James Cage, I do not know who created this original posting, but the definition of "notable" is one that encompasses excellence, not just fame or generally accepted greatness. To have this posting removed on the grounds that I am not "notable" without some clear standard by which to assess "notability" would tend to undermine my work and standing in the fields of my expertise. I was surprised to find the original wiki myself, but apparently someone or some group of people thought my accomplishments were worthy of notation. Perhaps it was the fact that I secured an injunction under the All Writs Act from the Supreme Court before certiorari was granted in a civil case, against a backdrop of a loss in the court of appeals, which has only happened about a half dozen times in the history of the Supreme Court (as far as I can tell from what is published). In any event, I think it was you who originally raised the somewhat insulting false assertion that I had only self-published in my various fields of expertise. To have this posting removed on the basis of a false statement that would tend to diminish my work in the fields of my expertise, was something that I could not let stand. In fact, your objection resulting in the notice of possible deletion led to a colleague of mine in another state to contact me with concern about whether your comment diminished my reputation in some way. I felt I had no choice but to update the site to prevent such an inference. Indeed, it seems to be a bit of a catch 22--someone posts me up on the wiki for a notable accomplishment, apparently does not maintain the site for several years, then someone comes along and says I've not published anything based on that, triggering a possible deletion for lack of publicity or publication, triggering concern about my reputation from colleagues, leading to me updating the sourcing to prevent damage to my reputation, and then triggering commentary that the listing is now too autobiographical. If there was a basis for the original posting being made and unchallenged for several years, I would think updating it would be entirely consistent with Wiki standards as well. §Nick Dranias — Preceding unsigned comment added by NickDranias (talk • contribs) 22:06, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Mr. Dranias, thank you for your spirited response to the AfD nomination. Acknowledging my own occasional fallibility I asked two respected editors of much greater experience than myself, USER:DGG and USER:Knowledgekid87, to examine the article in question and your points posted above and provide independent second opinions. Both kindly took the time to do so and their conclusions are posted below. Based on those conclusions and the concurring opinions of other respected editors, I stand by the AfD nomination as written. Best regards... -Ad Orientem (talk) 06:13, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

• Delete—This article relies almost exclusively on one source (affiliated with the person the article describes) and LinkedIn. My understanding is that such sources cannot establish notability. --Vindeniträden (talk) 23:31, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

• That's not true Vindenitraden. There are a ton of unaffiliated sources, Daily Caller, MSNBC, Fox News, CPAC, etc. The LinkedIn links are to the underlying secondary sources. Notability is clearly established.184.98.218.76 (talk) 23:35, 2 February 2014 (UTC)— 184.98.218.76 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• Delete for promotionalism , but permit rewriting. Sometimes we can remove promotionalism by normal editing, but if it is a pervasive as here, it is better to make a clean start. The articles link to every individual case he tried, and every subject in which he is interested,and many of his TV appearances, is absurd--that sort of writing is characteristic of a press release, not an encyclopedia article. Listing every paper (or if not ever, such a large number of the papers) he published through his think tank and associated groups is appropriate for a CV, not an encyclopedia article. Similarly for listing all law journal articles: normally, we list the one or two most important. Nor is it encyclopedic content to just which state bars and federal district bars he is admitted. All this sort of information belongs on his website. Having removed sections 3 & 4, what's left? The detailed discussion of McComish_v._Bennett belongs it that article, and could be wikilinked, instead of devoting an entire paragraph. It's a noteworthy case, and it appears he was Counsel of record. I do not immediately see whether he made the oral argument before the supreme court. If he did, then that is possibly significant notability, to the extent there is third party comment on his individual work.. Nothing else in section 2 is really notable. Indeed, his claims to have won every case he brought to trial are the sort of exceptional claims which must have third party evidence, not synthesis from a list he has himself prepared. Section 1 talks primarily about his law school grades in particular courses. All this is advertising, and all this is full of peacock phrases and adjectives of praise and importance.

It is an extremely frequent fault of people trying to write promotional articles to overdo things. A short neutrally-worded article hitting the highlights only is much more likely to stay in WP. It seems to be almost impossible to get people with a COI to realize this, which is why we so strongly discourage COI editing. A few people do manage to get it right, Of all forms of COI autobiography even more than paid editing is the most likely to lead to bad articles. It especially is most likely to lead to bad arguments at AfD, because almost nobody can be objective and use the arguments that are relevant here when their importance is challenged. This is a remarkably clear example, & should be deleted accordingly. Had it not come here, I would have considered speedy G11, but since it is here, a more definitive decision is possible. DGG ( talk ) 00:46, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

• Delete Most if not all of the sources are primary, there are secondary sources but those do not mention Nick Dranias, the biggest issue I also see with this article is it's promotionalism per DGG. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:57, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
• Retain as is This whole series of commentary and demands for deletion is objectionable and unreasonable. The whole discussion began with a false criticism that the person named in this wiki lacked evidence of publication and notability. Here is the original false critique: "I did a search for Nick Dranias on ProQuest and in Google, but did not find primary sources to replace the self-published sources referenced in this article. Even if all the self-published sources here were acceptable, they do not establish that the subject is notable." In response to this false critique, which could have been damaging to the person's reputation, additional primary sourcing demonstrating over 30 third party publications and numerous appearances on national media outlets was furnished. Then, after the initial false, defamatory critique was addressed, did further critiques arise ironically based on the sourcing needed to rebut the false defamatory critique. It would be outrageous if addressing and refuting a false critique with the demanded sourcing was, itself, a basis for deeming the post "promotional" and therefore grounds for deleting a post. It would almost seem to be a set up by a biased reviewer with a political agenda of his own. Further, this article was never created promotionally in the first place, it is not an advertisement, it is not politically biased, it is sourced to primary and secondary sources that show considerable notability, including repeated appearances on national television, featured presentations at nationally recognized institutes of learning. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.98.218.76 (talk) 02:11, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
• Retain as is Here is an interesting quote from DGG's user page: "People unfamiliar with the academic world may not realize that even a full professor at a major university is very likely to be notable, and thus sometimes nominate these articles for deletion--occasionally even by Speedy. It is therefore advisable to include from the first more than minimal information: at least their major publications, their honors and awards, the most important work they did--with a link to the WP article on that subject." Working as a director of a major nationally-recognized think tank is clearly analogous to being a full professor at a major university. In fact, such work is probably more notable in the sense of generating wider recognition and public awareness. Given the essential similarity between the two positions, it is important to note that DGG has unfairly failed to apply his own asserted principles. He has criticized this Wiki for including the very information that he says is necessary to include to establish notability. That is called a contradiction and also suggests a personal bias for failing to apply a principle evenly and equally. DGG's assertion should be rejected.NickDranias (talk) 02:24, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
• Retain as is As to any assertion that Wiki's COI policy precludes the sourcing provided in response to a false and defamatory critique, that assertion is utterly meritless. Assuming Wiki wishes to minimize its liability to a cause of action for libel, this policy is clearly not applicable to completely accurate sourcing provided to address a libelous critique of a wiki page from a user. If it were, there would be no way for the subjects of wikis created involuntarily about them to correct libelous critiques. If there were not such ability, then Wiki would likely become jointly liable for publishing libelous statements because Wiki's own policy would preclude a remedy from the libel published on its site.NickDranias (talk) 02:34, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
  • As you are only allowed to !vote once in an AfD discussion, I have struck your multiple "retain" votes while leaving the original. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:30, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

• Delete - Policy wonk, appearing as an occasional talking head on cable media shows. Nothing notable in the slightest. This is an encyclopedia, not your Linked in profile. Tarc (talk) 04:34, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

• Delete per DGG who has explained the situation exceptionally well. It's also one of the most blatant WP Autobiographies I've even seen on Wikipedia and hence a massive WP:Conflict of Interest (a term which every lawyer will readily understand). Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:38, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
• Delete but do not prevent recreation (salt), as per DGG and Kudpung above. I rather suspect that this subject is in fact notable, although i haven't trudged through all the forest of links to fully asses this, But even assuming that notability is conceded, (which not everyone here would agree with, it seems), the current article would need a drastic rewrite to achieve WP:NPOV, encyclopedic tone, and WP:DUE weight. If such a rewrite happens during the AfD i would consider changing my view, but I don't expect it. DES ^(talk) 04:55, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

• Delete (Note that I added the PROD tag to the article and commented on another editor's comments above, so I'm not sure if I should also vote here. If not, please disregard.) The subject may have some notability, but if so I think it would be better to start from scratch, for the reasons that were very well stated by DGG. This article was written by an editor with a personal or professional connection to the subject. (Mr. Conservative - see Talk:Nick Dranias.) Most, if not all of the non-trivial edits to this article were made by that editor or an editor who states that he is the subject of the article. These edits are probably in good faith, but reflect many fundamental misunderstandings of Wikipedia. If this article is recreated, it will hopefully be written from a neutral standpoint, by an editor or editors without personal connections to the subject. James Cage (talk) 05:40, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Respectfully disagree with recreation. I've been poking around those links and I am just not seeing much that would meet WP:N. Of course I would not preclude the possibility of recreating if there were a substantive change in Mr. Dranias' life that added to a notability claim. Perhaps he will be appointed to an important judgeship. But as things stand right now, I think any claims of notability are weak at best. -Ad Orientem (talk) 05:51, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

• Strong Keep (regretfully because I don't like promotional articles) After digging into this a bit, he is a darling of the right with many reliable sources from NPR, MSBC, Forbes, Fox News, and a number more that I have added to the article. The article needs to be rewritten to conform to our standards, but he is clearly notable. I am One of Many (talk) 07:20, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
• Comment After looking at the article and some of the sources I found, it looks like the article is not that promotional. He really is notable for much of what he says. I am One of Many (talk) 07:26, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Respectfully disagree I have been checking out the additional sources you have been posting (well done in your search btw), but remain unconvinced. According to WP:BIO it is not enough to be mentioned or even quoted in reliable secondary sources. One must be the actual subject of in depth coverage by reliable secondary sources. The sources you posted are about other topics, which Mr. Dranias is closely connected to. They were not about him. And even then most of the sources provide only very limited exposure to Mr. Dranias. He is quoted here and there. But his space in those sources is mostly very limited and arguably trivial. -Ad Orientem (talk) 07:39, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Comment Personally, I don't agree with his political perspective and could careless whether he has an article here, but in all of these sources, he is cited or interviewed as a national expert and that pretty much makes him notable. As one digs deep into a Google search more and more notable sources show up. I will take a few minutes and see if the is a notable source that goes into detail about him. I am One of Many (talk) 07:49, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

• Keep. He is apparently a conservative policy wonk and one of the top persons at a policy think tank. For comparison, see Manhattan Institute for Policy Research#People currently affiliated with the Manhattan Institute which links to 30+ separate wikipedia articles for editors and fellows there. He has appeared on MSNBC programs and on conference panels with respected others. He has publications. Just because he started his own article and it was inappropriately self-promotional does not mean he is not Wikipedia-notable. I've edited the article to replace bare URL citations, to drop usage of LinkedIn self-published page as a source, and towards toning it down somewhat. Editor "I am one of many" has also edited it to add NPR source(s). --doncram 07:43, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

It appears the article was not started by Dranias himself, but in its first version first version it seems to me to have been promotional and non-encyclopedic. However this is to be addressed by editing, not by deletion, IMO. --doncram 15:08, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Re:Manhattan Institute list I just checked out the first ten people with WP articles from that list. All but one of them had unimpeachable claims to WP:N completely independent of their relationship with TMI. Many were academics who held high honors in their fields, others were former members of Congress or in one case had clerked for not one, but two Justices of the Supreme Court. I am sorry but being employed by, and a periodic spokesmen for a political think tank does not bestow notability as far as I am able to find in WP:N. Could someone please quote specifically the criteria that he meets from the GNG or BIO? I am not trying to peruse some vendetta here. But I am still not seeing where he meets our guidelines. If it can be shown that he does, I will concede as much. -Ad Orientem (talk) 08:12, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

• Comment This AFD should not come down too wp:BITEY on a newbie. An insinuation at ANI (later at least partly retracted), that Nick Dranias is attempting sock-puppetry by IP postings, is b.s. The IP posts above are pretty clearly written by Dranias with no concealment. To Dranias: be careful, technical non-compliance with Wikipedia sock-puppeting rules provides an easy/effective excuse for administrators to block/ban you permanently, however unfair that may be. Best to post while fully logged in, and/or to come back and sign your post if you find you were not logged in. --doncram 07:43, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

• Delete - can't get there from here. If the subject is notable, that hagiography is of little value in constructing an unbiased article. Pinkbeast (talk) 12:29, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
• Keep Thanks for the support and understanding from some of the folks above. I am just getting the hang of this process. Again, I did not create this wiki. I did not ask for this wiki. Someone else did. This whole chain began with the false and defamatory claim I only self-published, which caused a colleague of mine to contact me with the concern that the critique needed to be addressed. The sourcing was provided solely to remedy that false and defamatory claim. And now it appears that the source of the false and defamatory claim. This whole process is reminiscent of Kafka. A false critique is made, it is addressed with sourcing to remedy the defamation that resulted, and now a veritable menagerie of people start making groundless assertions about self-promotion. Heck, I must be a really bad self-promoter having never connected with this site before last Friday! Frankly, it is pretty weird to be in a position to defend myself as "notable," but come one! Why don't you deleters just honestly google my name. I've been quoted in books, cited by law reviews and journals, referenced in newspaper articles, given congressional testimony, engaged on Senator Durbin's targeting of ALEC, made the subject of a crazy full-on anti-center-right think tank attack by Progress Now and Center for Media and Democracy. I really didn't ask for that stuff, but it exists, lots and lots of it, and anyone who claims it does not has not done his homework. I challenge anyone to find more than a handful of "full professors" at major universities that have "enjoyed" similar notability. Now don't go and start adding that stuff to the page ;)NickDranias (talk) 12:50, 3 February 2014 (UTC)184.98.218.76 (talk) 12:45, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

• Please stop trying to vote more than once, I have stricken the "keep" part of the entry above. Tarc (talk) 12:48, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

• Hey Tarc, I'm not trying to vote more than once. I didn't even know I was voting. I'm debating a bunch of people who are making unsubstantiated claims. Is this a majority rule determination? Or does there have to be merit to the delete opinions?NickDranias (talk) 12:53, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

• Nick if this article gets deleted I want you to know that it is not for good, the history will most likely be kept (contribution history), I feel that with a bit more time the article about you has the potential to be here on Wikipedia. As for article content I invite you to read Wikipedia's disclaimers if you wish: (WP:DISC). - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:18, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

• Ad Orientum, why do you think this is an accurate statement, "being employed by, and a periodic spokesmen for a political think tank does not bestow notability as far as I am able to find in WP:N?" I am not exactly a janitor at the Goldwater Institute who pokes his head into a TV studio from time to time. I'm not a spokesman either. I'm a director and I actually develop and propagate many of the Institute's policy ideas. The job entails organizing academic forums, speaking engagements around the country, publishing, litigating, expert testimony. Moreover, Goldwater is not a "political" think tank, it is a 501(c)3 which cannot be political. It is a center-right think tank. Don't you think your minimization is an inaccurate representation of the facts? I do.NickDranias (talk) 13:01, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Every time you say "Keep" or "Retain as is", it's considered a vote. If you wish to politely reply to someone else's comments, you indent it twice by starting off the line with two colons ::. Be aware, however, the subject of an article should not be editing it to begin with, and your arguments must be policy-based, not based on your personal knowledge of yourself. However, in your comments, do not simply repeat your previous arguments - we've seen them, and all members of the community are permitted to make policy-based arguments of their own DP 13:07, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

DP, Here is an important part of the Wiki COI policy folks have not considered yet: "An exception to editing an article about yourself or someone you know is made if the article contains defamation or a serious error that needs to be corrected quickly." That is precisely what I did by adding sourcing and specifics to rebut James Cage's original false critique that I only self-published and he could not find any significant hits on google. I suppose someone could claim that Cage's false critique was not part of the article, but the problem with that argument is that, according to my colleague, the article was flagged with that critique, which obviously incorporates it into the substance of the article. I see now that I am supposed to email people when I make those edits, but I don't know how to email yet and when I figure it out, I will.NickDranias (talk) 13:34, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

• Comment The editor who claims to be the subject of this article accuses me of making "false and defamatory" claims on this page - terms with legal meaning that are often the subjects of lawsuits. On this page he has also brought up "liability" and "action for libel." This is prohibited, and for very good reason - this kind of stuff usually indicates an effort to intimidate. This behavior is the subject of an incident report (forgive me for not linking directly to the topic - I'm still pretty new here myself - scroll down to "Articles_for_deletion.2FNick_Dranias": Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents As you can see at the incident report, I defended that person and urged restraint, however, he continues to make legal-sounding accusations and continues to accuse me of libel defamation. To this unacceptable behavior, the editor now claims that I have "disappeared my user account" for some nefarious purpose, which is of course false and a reflection that the editor knows very little about Wikipedia. As I said, I'm still pretty new to Wikipedia, but I hope that the editor who claims to be Nick Dranias will pause and reflect on his actions here.

Regarding the article itself, I believe that, despite the good work done by some of the editors posting on this page, the subject would be best served by starting from scratch. Thanks -- James Cage (talk) 13:45, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

This editor is also claiming that I made statements that I, of course, did not make - for example that I stated he was only self-published. My comments are recorded here, on the talk page of the article, and in the change comments themselves. James Cage (talk) 13:46, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

To be fair, Nick Dranias had a point. The edit by James Cage explicitly only stated that "I did a search for Nick Dranias on ProQuest and in Google, but did not find primary sources to replace the self-published sources referenced in this article. Even if all the self-published sources here were acceptable, they do not establish that the subject is notable....", which does not say all the sources were self-published. However, this prod edit by James Cage had edit summary asserting all references were self-published ("Proposed Deletion - Not notable. All references self-published, flagged as such since April. Several searches failed to find adequate references"). As editor Nomoskedasticy says at the article Talk page, what matters is that the references that were in the article "do not meet WP:SECONDARY. This is obvious in regard to the Goldwater sources that were the only references then on the article." However, cooling it is advised, and legal threats will lead a person to be banned from Wikipedia, see Wikipedia:No legal threats. --doncram 15:31, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

It looks like I may have confused what is considered a "self-published source" in a Wikipedia article with what is considered a "primary source". (I'm still a little unclear - I need to read up on the link you provided.) If so, that reflects my newness to Wikipedia - I'm still learning. I never stated that the subject himself had only self-published articles, only had 50 hits on Google, or made any other statements that meet the real definition of defamation. Thanks for taking some time on this. James Cage (talk) 15:40, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

This editor is repeating his accusations of "false and defamatory" on multiple pages, including the article's talk page and his own talk page. His comments yesterday could be written off as an excess of emotion - I defended him and urged patience on the incident page yesterday. But, in my view, he is escalating and expanding his charges today, and it is increasingly difficult to see this as anything other than effort to intimidate. James Cage (talk) 14:16, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

• To the biographee: Cool it. Example (from above): Goldwater is not a "political" think tank, it is a 501(c)3 which cannot be political. It is a center-right think tank. So it's not political because it can't be and instead it's political. Please. Further, legal-sounding allegations will get you nowhere: if they're not laughed off, they'll be taken seriously. Really, it's not dignified for the kind of person the article portrays to get involved in this way. -- Hoary (talk) 14:07, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

I appreciate the engagement, but the legal definition of defamation is "the action of damaging the good reputation of someone." Whatever the technical understanding among wiki users of the term "self-published," in my field it has a very specific meaning: A weird guy living with his mom spending $10,000 to get a printer to publish a few hundred books. Well, maybe that's the connotation. The meaning is that you are not published by a third party with publication standards. If anyone really googled me, he or she would literally find thousands of hits and possibly hundreds of publications. I don't say that to boast, but simply to underscore the lack of care that preceded Mr. Cage's critique of my work as "self-published" and only having "50" hits on google. Frankly, I would never have cared about this without Mr. Cage's critique being posted. Actions have consequences. I received a concerned email from a colleague who saw it and thought it damaged or if not corrected would damage my reputation. I think my editing actions clearly fall within the COI exception for defamation--even if Mr. Cage's intentions were pure, which I am now coming to believe is the case.NickDranias (talk) 14:23, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm going to take my own advice, and stop checking this for at least a day, as comments like "actions have consequences" and repeated accusations of defamation coming from someone claiming to be a lawyer are causing me to lose perspective. But I never said the subject of this article only had 50 hits on Google. I only found about 50 hits on ProQuest, a database of news articles. My comments are, of course, available to anyone to review first-hand. Have a good Monday, people - James Cage (talk) 14:44, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm angry, and I shouldn't be adding to this. But the actual definition of defamation includes an intent to cause harm. See [[1]]. If the editor is the subject of this article, he is a lawyer, and knows this. He seems to be implying that I defamed him with pure intent, which is impossible. But he posts a self-serving and incomplete definition of the term in a forum for non-lawyers. He continues to repeat accusations that I defamed him to non-lawyers, who might not know the real definition. To his "actions have consequences" comment above, he adds statements like "everything is in the real world" at the incident page. I believe this is an attempt to intimidate me and the editors here. James Cage (talk) 15:23, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

As i noted further above, I think Dranias had a point that there was mention, in an edit summary, of all sources being self-published. That was about all references supporting the article being from the Goldwater Institute, it turns out. But Dranias' assertion of a "lack of care that preceded Mr. Cage's critique of my work as 'self-published'" seems to imply Dranias is interpreting there to be assertions that Dranias himself has only self-published works, when he does have law journal publications. I don't think James Cage or anyone else asserted Dranias has only self-published that way. Wikipedia:No legal threats specifically advises against using term "defamatory", as likely intimidating to most of us who are not lawyers. Take a break for a day or two, everyone, and i will too. --doncram 15:43, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

• Delete – needs secondary sources, which there is a lack of. Epicgenius (talk) 18:00, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
• Delete -- there is a lack of WP:SECONDARY material about this person to support a proper biography. As someone who has published various items, there are various results to be found in searches, but nothing substantial has been written about him. Fundamentally fails WP:BIO. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 14:57, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
• Comment I think this is a case where WP:COMMONSENSE clearly applies. If he is called to testify at the state and national level, then he is clearly notable (there are plenty of government documents to this effect). If he is asked to participate multiple times by the national news media, then he is notable. I think if we delete this article, it demonstrates more of a problem with our process of determining notability, than that there is no evidence that he is notable. I am One of Many (talk) 18:20, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

• Your comment interests me. The article says: He has been requested to appear before legislative committees and give expert testimony on a wide range of constitutional and public policy issues throughout the country, including Arizona, Georgia, Missouri, North Dakota, and Utah. But it doesn't source these claims, instead presenting a list of TV appearances and the like. I haven't looked at any of these, and am willing to believe that some show appearances before legislative committees. But are such appearances written up in newspaper articles or similar? (And if they're not, should WP bother with them?) -- Hoary (talk) 00:54, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

• DGG, above, says that G11 would have applied and I agree. The section "Publicity and Media Engagement" is basically just a resume, whose language is unacceptably promotional (well, in an encyclopedic article, not in a blurb)--and the sourcing is unacceptable too. Secondary sourcing is required, even in the resume-style "Publications" section. Articles could be listed, if they can be proven to have made an impact of some sort; if they can't, they're just so many resume entries. The laundry list of references for the first paragraph are just so many mentions; I don't see any of them claiming anything important about the subject, so while they may verify that the subject works for this or that institute, but in a position that has no inherited notability (for our purposes), they can't help establish notability.

  I'll search some more, but have not yet found anything more than this on a Slate blog. So far, I'm leaning delete. Drmies (talk) 01:18, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

• Comment Seeing that there appears to be consensus towards deletion, it is just below being G11, and nobody is finding any sources would this be a candidate for a speedy close? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:03, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

I think not, about speedy closing. There is interest in referencing for legislative committee appearances, which is available -- in my browsing i saw i think both state and national appearances. And he did present a case before the U.S. supreme court i think. Personally i think he is notable, he is a person that a wikipedia reader would like to be able to look up when seeing him on a news panel, etc. It would be okay to strip the article down even further and leave it a mere stub, but the person is wikipedia-notable IMHO and, about closing, there is still development that can be done. --doncram 02:11, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Re:Speedy close Not quite yet, but soon. Some editors are still searching for sources that would establish notability, But I do tend to agree that there is a clear and overwhelming consensus here. Also I again have to say that despite claims by other editors, whom I respect, I see no real evidence of notability as it is defined in GNG or BIO. Being a witness before Congress on some issues might be notable, I am thinking really major stuff like impeachment hearings or the like. But lots of people are called to testify before half empty committees for pure political theater all the time. So no I don't consider having offered testimony to Congress to bestow automatic notability. Likewise if Mr. Dranias was the actual lead attorney in a Supreme Court case and delivered oral arguments, I think that would work for WP:N. But as far as I am aware, that is not alleged. I would suggest we give this another 24 hrs in the interest of fairness. But if nothing that triggers a flashing neon sign reading "WP:N HERE" is found, then I think maybe it will be time to wrap this up. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:33, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

This ABC News article states that "Nick Dranias of the Goldwater Institute ... represents three state legislative candidates challenging the law" (Arizona Citizen's Clean Elections Act), which was an important Supreme Court case. I am One of Many (talk) 03:57, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Just my humble proposal as the subject of this rather strange process, the comments above started before many of the third party references now shown on the page revealed my rather extensive national presence in the media, policy world, legislative world. Perhaps you should reboot the comments page now that so many new references were added to the page (I did not do it!). It would seem a bit like a rush to judgment when the facts now clearly contradict some of the premises of the earlier "delete" comments above. Just so you know, what is shown is really just the tip of the iceberg. I don't say that to be full of myself. It is just true. If there really is doubt about my leading a Supreme Court case, maybe google "Nick Dranias Clean Elections Goldwater Institute" and see what you find. If there really is doubt about my legislative testimony, maybe visit the legislative video archives of Arizona, Georgia, North Dakota, Missouri from 2011-14 and do a search on my name. If there is really doubt about third parties referencing me in media publications, maybe do a search on lexis-nexis with the words "nick dranias" in it. Or just don't search for the stuff, and declare I'm not notable. But if you do that, please delete the entire page and all of these rather silly comments. Don't leave a stub. I didn't ask for this page. I don't need it or a stub. I just want there to be no implication from whatever stuff you guys do that somehow my professional work is "unworthy" of wiki. NickDranias (talk) 04:11, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

• Comment I'll do my best to make one last argument for notability in this case. The argument that I haven't articulated well is that the sum is often greater than the parts. In this case, we have a number of major news media sources that have requested his comments on are variety of political and legal issues. I don't know about everyone else, but I don't have MSNBC, Fox News, ABC News, Forbes, etc. calling me up to ask my opinion on such issues. So, why Nick? Because he is notable and I'm not. Is this argument based on policy? Indeed it is. In WP:BASIC we have If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may not be sufficient to establish notability. And this is what we have, multiple reliable secondary sources. The coverage in these sources is not trivial because all of these sources are requesting his views on the topics of the articles. None of sources go into substantial depth but taken as a whole, they provide his political and legal views for which he is notable. I am One of Many (talk) 07:23, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Maybe so, One of Many, and I also don't get called up for my opinion, but the policy you're pointing at, correct me if I'm wring, points to multiple secondary sources, not primary, which is what we're dealing with here. If his appearances in all these media had been remarked on by others, we'd have a very different discussion. Drmies (talk) 20:09, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
    • I see where you are coming from Drmies, but I think the major media sources reporting on his views, interpretations, and opinions do satisfy our definition of a secondary source WP:SECONDARY: A secondary source provides an author's own thinking based on primary sources, generally at least one step removed from an event. It contains an author's interpretation, analysis, or evaluation of the facts, evidence, concepts, and ideas taken from primary sources. The "one step removed" is an issue for straight up interviews, but most of these articles appear to be syntheses of positions of several people, which I believe makes the reporting of his views one step removed. This is also an odd case. His views are reported in numerous places. He has testified at the state and federal level. He has been a lawyer in at least one import Supreme Court case, but there apparently isn't a good reliable secondary source article on him. That is why I think the main if not the only basis for notability is the totality of secondary sources. I am One of Many (talk) 20:53, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
      • One of Many, you were talking about his "media appearances"--those are primary. If you want to talk about secondary sources, that's fine--but where does the article have any that do more than mention him? This, for instance, contains two indirect mentions. This has him speaking at a meeting, as one of 25 (though of course it verifies his position--but that's not the most important thing). This, again, is very very skimpy. All these are just mentions, and if you want to argue that they add up, they a. can't be confused with links to his media appearances (primary) and b. have to be listed and weighed, really. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 23:30, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
• Delete - Promotional, not notable, lack of WP:SECONDARY sources. 86.167.164.106 (talk) 08:43, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:56, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Conservatism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:56, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:56, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:56, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

• Delete. Lack of significant coverage by reliable third party sources. Niteshift36 (talk) 17:57, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
• Comment I have not yet studied the references that are currently in the article, so I am not !voting for the moment. I would like to point out that much of the contentiousness of this AfD seems to stem from incorrect terminology. For example, the website of the think thank were Dranias works is not something that he "self-published". It is, however, a primary source that is not independent. As several other people have already noted here, we need secondary sources AND those sources need to be independent of the subject. Being a little bit more careful in a BLP AfD might have saved some drama. As for notability, WP uses that in the sense of "having been noted", which needs to be verifiable through secondary reliable sources that are independent of the subject of the article. Nobody here seems to deny that Dranias is a regular guest on TV shows and panels and such, I would assume that at least some of that has been covered. I agree that the original article, until a few days ago, was horrendously promotional and insufficiently sourced. Normally I would vote "delete" in such a case, because, like DGG said above, it is often easier in cases like this to start from scratch. Despite the hard work of several editors over the past few days, I don't think the article is beyond that "nuke it" stage yet, unfortunately. --Randykitty (talk) 18:19, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

• Comment Dranias seems to be an activist to me, equivalent to many members of Category:Activists by issue, a category which overall suggests a left-wing bias in Wikipedia. I find no right-wing advocates there, at least not easily. (Category:Advocates seems to be about Scottish lawyers). I just read all of one of the Goldwater Institute's reports by Dranias, Recognizing Pension System Insolvency: A Catalyst for Lasting Reform, by Nick Dranias, J.D., and Byron Schlomach, Ph.D., which is a policy piece and an advocacy piece, pointing to specific legislative and legal strategies to effect changes that Dranias argues are good/necessary. It includes law case precedent discussions that seem "expert" to me (i am not a lawyer), and includes discussion of financial theory and practice that is perfectly competent (i have adequate expertise to evaluate that). I haven't read any of his academic journal articles. Based on this one piece, I am sure he is competent to give appearances on panels and so on about pension system reforms. He seems equivalent in importance to many activists in categories like Category:Anti-bullying activists. I know "other stuff exists" is deemed not a completely valid argument in this CFD setting, but it seems to me that there is a dearth of coverage on right-wing activists/advocates in Wikipedia. I think the article is fine now, better than many activist articles, and it would be best to keep it, especially as a service to media consumers who might wonder who is this person on a panel, much as they would wonder about some left-wing activist. --doncram 22:26, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

P.S. For what it's worth, there are related Stephen Slivinski, Byron Schlomach, Darcy A. Olsen, and Thomas C. Patterson articles in Wikipedia about other Goldwater Institute staff / officers. First two not linked, latter two linked from the GI article, i think. --doncram 00:47, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

• strong keep I probably qualify as "the right" but I've never heard of the guy before. there do seem to be plenty of sources that mention him. In addition to the ones in the article already, google, gnews, gbooks, and gscholar all return multiple hits for him. they might not be all in-depth, but at a certain point a pile of in-passing mentions gets you past GNG. The article does read like a resume and needs a bunch of work, but that problem is WP:SURMOUNTABLE note to closer : I would recommend evaluating some of the sources yourself, and then applying appropriate weight to !votes which indicate there is insufficient sourcing. 'Gaijin42 (talk) 23:00, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
• Delete. After all this effort and Wikipedia:Wikipuffery, the article still seems to have only one source that is both independent of the subject and his employers and in some sense about Dranias: the Arizona Daily Independent story "Goldwater’s Dranias joins Compact for America". However even that source has no information about Dranias beyond what's in its title — the content of the story is entirely about CfA. This is not enough for WP:GNG. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:22, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
  • I don't think the editors who arguing for notability are engaged in Wikipedia:Wikipuffery. The argument for notability rests on the totality of the independent sources, since none of them go into depth about him. Given this approach to notability, then numerous sources are required to establish notability. I am One of Many (talk) 00:40, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
    • I was not referring to the arguments within this discussion, which I have not spent much time reading carefully, but rather to the fact that the article itself is puffed up with a high volume of low-quality sources, making it difficult to discern whether there are any high-quality ones. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:14, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Final (probably) Comment There are a lot of issues with this article. But to my mind the bottom line remains that even piling up all the sources together (excepting the primary ones), almost without exception, they aren't really about the subject of the article. They are about other topics or issues, to which the article's subject is connected. That's a FAIL in my reading of GNG and BIO. That said, I don't think it's especially unlikely that Mr. Dranias will at some point pass the threshold for inclusion here. If/When the time comes my suggestion would be to put his name in over at AfC and see if we can get something that isn't such a wiki-train wreck. Regards the question of left leaning political bias on Wikipedia, I can't comment from personal experience though I have heard similar whispers. If it's true then we need to be vigilant that righteous articles about subjects of a political nature do not suffer from that. Just for the record, lest there be any suspicion of lefty political bias in my nomination, my own politics are several light years to the right of Mr. Dranias. And lastly I will say that I now agree with user:Knowledgekid87's suggestion that a consensus seems to exist and perhaps it is time to lower the curtain on this discussion. But of course that decision is above my pay grade and I defer to Admin. Unless something pops up that fundamentally changes the course of the discussion, I am going to bow out. I think what needed to be said, has been, by pretty much everyone with any interest. I thank all of the editors who have contributed to this discussion from which I, a still relatively new editor, have learned much. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:40, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

• Delete I'm just not seeing enough independent coverage to pass GNG. --Randykitty (talk) 08:04, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
• Delete. Insufficient sources for GNG. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:53, 6 February 2014 (UTC).
  • @ Randykitty and @Xxanthippe (and anyone else), I completely agree with you about this article not passing WP:GNG, but how are we to reconcile GNG with WP:PEOPLE and especially the section WP:BASIC: If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may not be sufficient to establish notability? The question I have is whether WP:GNG tumps WP:BASIC for WP:BLPs? It is, of course, an open question whether the totality of sources does in fact satisfy WP:BASIC in this case, but I would guess that it is rare to have a case that pits WP:BASIC against WP:GNG so clearly. At this point, it looks like there is a consensus to delete, so I'm more interested in how people interpreted WP:GNG vs. WP:BASIC in this case. I am One of Many (talk) 03:59, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
    • I'm not sure where the notion that "a bunch of trivial references adds up to notability" crept into wp:basic, but it's absurd. Or maybe it has been absurd all along, but it isn't an argument I've ever heard of until very recently, e.g. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kat Walsh. I reject this out of hand. Tarc (talk) 04:19, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
      • I don't think the sources are trivial since they are not "a simple directory entry or a mention in passing" as stated in the note in WP:BASIC. They are not substantial, however. I don't know if this is the correct venue, but my question at this point is whether BASIC is applicable in practice? How many insubstantial sources are required to establish notability? My gut feeling is that there is enough in this case, but I'm coming to realize that what is enough is far from clear. I think we are dealing with a very fuzzy criterion in BASIC, so I'm changing my "strong keep" to just "keep". I am One of Many (talk) 06:55, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
• Delete. It's basically a résumé. Gamaliel (talk) 23:53, 6 February 2014 (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.