Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Todd J. Rathner

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 keep. Even ignoring all the low edit count contributors who !voted keep, consensus clearly shifted in favor of keep as the discussion continued. While we want to discourage canvassing for discussions, we do that by discounting obviously canvassed and non-policy based !votes; but we don't hold it against the article beyond that. (And if the attention results in an improved article, all the better) In the end, there is a clear keep consensus among the established editors who contributed to the discussion. Monty845 23:20, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Todd J. Rathner[edit]

Todd J. Rathner (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)

Non-notable. Being a board member of a group and being active on its committees does not confer notability, and there's apparently nothing else he has ever done. Article created by an SPA. MSJapan (talk) 04:35, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  06:07, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  06:07, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  06:08, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  06:08, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There aren't any significant independent sources about the guy, just some passing references or quotes. Felsic2 (talk) 16:35, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -Brief article about a non-notable person seemingly trying to use Wikipedia as a source of credibility for their career. Burroughs'10 (talk) 17:14, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep this article about a professional lobbyist for an organization that I (and many other editors ) DONOTLIKE. I can see that this was a highly bloated page, presumably WP:PROMO, and that a couple of editors have combed the page ane let out a lot of the hot air. However, I ran a couple of searches on versions of his name - adding articles form USA Today and the Sarasota Herald that I found in those searches and overall, I am not comfortable deleting a guy with this much coverage in the news over so many years, plus a claim to have influenced a significant piece of legislation and founding a new lobbying group that may be notable.E.M.Gregory (talk) 05:15, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is a good case of "notability is not inherited". The subject was on the board of National Rifle Association. That doesn't help in proving notability. I tried to search for the article subject and I found these sources USA today, Bloomerg, NPR, AZ Central, tucson.com which either quote the subject or have a trivial mention. This is not significant coverage in reliable independent secondary sources. I could not find any source which discusses the subject in detail. This fails WP:GNG. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 13:37, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I also searched and did not find it quite so simple. During my search, I found an article in the Sarasota Herald-Tribune describing him as having founded a lobbying outfit, and an article in Safari (magazine) about the fact that he owns a safari-arranging company - added both to the article. After reading Lemongirl1942's comment, I double-checked my opinion by searching the Arizona Republic, and found this: [1] discussing his career in ssubstantive detail.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:13, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jenks24 (talk) 10:14, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Rathner is a prominent lobbyist and very notable with regard to legislation. Sources abound in the mainstream media.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 21:00, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The subject of the article is a nationally known lobbyist who has passed legislation in Arizona that has been used as a template for other states to pass the same legislation. Subject's work has created national policy, that is seemingly important enough to keep this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.251.17.218 (talk) 21:25, 26 June 2016 (UTC) — 24.251.17.218 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. MSJapan (talk) 23:20, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep A Google News search for "Todd Rathner" yields 153 hits for me, and a number of them are in high-quality journalistic sources who deemed Rathner noteworthy enough for substantial coverage relating to the work that our article cites for his notability: gun and knife-rights activism. See, e.g., [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12]. The article is clearly a work in progress, but the subject seems notable under WP:GNG. DickClarkMises (talk) 00:18, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I see each article has some quotes by the subject, yet none of them describe the subject in detail. We need reliable secondary sources about the subject. That is restricted to a single sentence mentions that the subject is a lobbyist working for NRA or another group. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 19:35, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hmm, would you look again? This is an article entirely about legal action Rathner was threatening in Tucson and mentions him by name six times. In this article about switchblades he is quoted three times as an authority on knife laws. Here is an article about knife laws in Texas and Rathner's efforts to change them. This source cites Rathner as an authority on the inner workings of the NRA. This article refers to him by name five times, again in his capacity as a firearms activist. This one mentions him by name half a dozen times, describes his knife rights group as "leading the charge" on the issue, and provides info about Rathner as one of its prominent leaders. DickClarkMises (talk) 03:04, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Rathner is a board member and/or lobbyist for three prominent and highly controversial organizations (National Rifle Association, Knife Rights, NFA Freedom Alliance). He is frequently featured in the news media, both as a source and as the subject of news articles and editorials ([13]). Given that this news coverage of Rathner goes back almost seven years, I don't see any basis for claiming that he lacks notoriety and/or is not a public figure. Douva (talk) 00:34, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the guy runs NFAFA - an organization that passed laws in several states, and is a lobbyist for Knife Rights. MicroBalrog (talk) 01:31, 27 June 2016 (UTC)01:30, 27 June 2016 (UTC) — MicroBalrog (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. MSJapan (talk) 01:33, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment It is interesting that they listed this article with the terrorism project, but left it out of the firearms project. Obviously it is the bias against firearms at work here.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 01:52, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Or maybe it's because the topic isn't a gun? Also, who's your collective "they?" The cabal? Read the scope of the firearms project right at the top of the page. Activism isn't in their scope, and that's their choice. If you consider that to be biased, go discuss it on the project talk with them, not here. MSJapan (talk) 02:07, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP Rathner and the NFAFA lobbied strongly to get knife laws changed in New York State in the past legislative session. New York State is a place not known for it's support of gun or weapons friendly legislation of late, so that's a significant accomplishment for any lobbyist or lobbyist organization. Johnsonlmg (talk) 13:32, 27 June 2016 (UTC) — Johnsonlmg (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Lemongirl942 (talk) 13:58, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • NOTE TO CLOSER - The above editor socked to add 5 additional "keep" votes to this discussion, per [[16], all of which I have struckthrough. The closer may wish to discard their vote because of this behavior. There has also been off-Wiki canvassing for "keep" votes, as discussed on AN/I. BMK (talk) 12:05, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP Subject is clearly notable, this discussion - again - is being misused as a political discussion. I will clean up the article and maybe remove some fluff. Antonycarrere (talk) 17:47, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • What do you mean "again"? Your account is 12 days old. MSJapan (talk) 17:58, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep - As much as I hate to come down on the side of an army of meat puppets (and as much as I generally assume that positions which rely on canvassing tend to be the ones unsupported by policy), the sources linked by DickClarkMises look to be sufficient to satisfy WP:BIO. Article clearly needs plenty of work, though. A word to anyone who has not previously edited Wikipedia thinking about chiming in: you're almost certainly acting against your own interests by doing so. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 18:31, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep per DickClarkMises. Rathner is regularly quoted/cited in reliable sources as an expert in the area of gun/knife rights and laws. Per the numerous sources posted above. Additionally, per WP:ANYBIO Rathner has certainly made a significant contribution to their field Gaijin42 (talk) 18:56, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • PROOF OF CANVASSING Check this facebook status by the article subject: "Are any of my friends registered Wikipedia editors? If so please PM me." (See also Snapshot of Facebook profile and the fact that the subject advertises his Wikipedia page on his profile. This is WP:PROMO territory). --Lemongirl942 (talk) 19:28, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment All that "prooves" is that he asked if anyone knows how to edit wikipedia.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 13:20, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Per the sources E.M.Gregory found, which now satisfies GNG. GigglesnortHotel (talk) 20:52, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Think he satisfies notability. White Arabian Filly Neigh 01:14, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep He has been covered by major news agency like The New York Times, NPR, Los Angeles Times, Houston Chronicles, Bloomberg etc. He seems to pass the notability test per WP:GNG. Apart from links mentioned above by User:DickClarkMises, he has been mentioned in The Week article. The article may need some expansion but deleting it won't be a correct choice. Hitro talk 13:16, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • ‘Keep Unlike the nominator I believe that being a board member of powerful organization such as the NRA does confer notability. Ottawahitech (talk) 07:23, 29 June 2016 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Todd_J._Rathner&oldid=1183368413"