Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mike Roman

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. So Why 18:30, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Roman[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)

WP:BLP1E scenario. There is coverage about him, but it all relates to him having some unclear position in the Trump campaign. Being appointed a special assistant to the president does not confer notability, especially when in an all but undefined position, and if you read the Politico piece, it more discusses his role on the campaign than anything else (hence the BLP1E issue). TonyBallioni (talk) 15:14, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 15:39, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There may in fact be enough WP:SIGCOV to keep this one. I added a couple of INDEPTH articles about him to the page, and here is a gNews search on "Mike Roman" + Trump [1]. Keywords are useful since "Mike Roman" turns out to be the name of a number of other men who are in the news.E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:02, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah, I did that too. 100% a case of BLP1E. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:16, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Unsure - I'd like to see an intro that actually says who he is and what his profession actually is. Deb (talk) 11:40, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Adding material about who is is and what he does.E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:26, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:57, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:58, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 17:32, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. People do not get an automatic inclusion freebie just for being campaign operatives, but this is not sourced well enough to move him from WP:BLP1E into ten-year test-passing notability. No prejudice against recreation in the future if he attains a stronger notability claim, but nothing present here is convincing evidence of permanent notability as of yet. Bearcat (talk) 19:03, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think articles like The mysterious oppo researcher working in the White House lawyer's office in Politico this spring put him over the top. Do note that he doesn't give interviews, doesn't want to be in the papers, and that the Trump administration won't talk about him.E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:21, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete-Per TonyBallioni.Clear-cut BLP1E.And, our job is not to shine spotlight on person(s) who have chosen to evade coverage by altering (lowering) our inclusion-requirements.That's nonsense.∯WBG^converse 13:20, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't WP:BLP1E. There's coverage of his work for the Koch's, his work for the Trump campaign, and his job at the White House.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:49, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note that his activities have covered in books at least as far back as the 2004 Bush campaign. Have added a book and a scholarly article, each taking a close look at a single event in his career as a Party operative, both instances related to his blog, a blog that was not on the page when I began editing this morning. We may still missing a lot of coverage of his pre-Trump career. It is understandable that Nom and many of the editors above have not found sources; Mike Roman is a frustratingly common name. It's just the sort of name an oppo research might make up if he didn't want to come up in google searches.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:32, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WP:HEYMANN. Updated article; Politico says he left the White House job in April. I'm out of time, even though I have not finished adding books and scholarly articles that already exist. After a couple of hours googling him, my WP:CRYSTAL ball tells me that more books and journal articles will appear as scholars and journalists chew their way through the event-rich turf of the Trump administration. But I think that there is now more than enough WP:SIGCOV published over the course of 2 decades (albeit, he didn't begin get INDEPTH until the 2004 Bush campaign.) E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:24, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:23, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There seem to be enough sources here to support an article. Just because he doesn't give interviews and generally stays out of the limelight doesn't mean we can't have an article on him. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 00:55, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- That actually is what that means, because there isn’t enough sourcing despite claims otherwise. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:44, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Look at the 2016 Ben Jacobs (journalist) story in The Guardian: Controversial Republican Mike Roman to run Donald Trump's 'election protection' , it quotes Rick Hasen, an election law professor at the University of California, Irvine, : “It was one of the most retold stories on Fox News and the right for years and took on almost mythical status as evidence of thuggery by Democrats to harm the voting process.” on a 2004 Campaign strategy by Roman that is also explored in a book by Hansen already on the page. The argument that this was BLP1E does not wash, bu the argument that there is inadequate coverage is odd given that Roman has gotten WP:SIGCOV in books, academic journals, and newspapers since 2004. E.M.Gregory (talk) 05:37, 4 July 2018 (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.