Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nathan Ballard

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. Black Kite (talk) 01:34, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nathan Ballard[edit]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

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

Fails GNG. Not the subject of multiple instances of substantial independent coverage in so-called "reliable sources." Heavily spammy in content and sourced in a highly dubious form. Carrite (talk) 06:23, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - There was an editing issue that arose over this piece at ANI and the question came up as to whether the subject even meets notability requirements. I'm running the listing here for a determination of this question. Carrite (talk) 06:29, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a professional communications figure-head who has as much connection to the crises he deals with as the news broadcasters who report them. While some news broadcasters become notable, it's usually for very long tenure, innovation in the medium or branching out in ways which get them coverage as people, and I don't see any of those here. Stuartyeates (talk) 07:52, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment He does have a lot of press coverage[1][2][3][4] although most of it is focussed on his 2009 resignation and its effects on his boss Gavin Newsom, and could be classed as op-ed rather than news; the earlier references seem to just quote him as a spokesman. Possibly needs more evidence of his importance apart from this resignation. --Colapeninsula (talk) 12:07, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Many of the sources in this article seem more like press releases, discussing that he exists and in what position, rather than any actual importance or significance he (or his positions) hold. Other sources are dealing with topics or people he has been involved with but, in which, he isn't actually the main focus--nor is his role in those areas claimed to be of significance. Since he is widely mentioned it's a bit difficult to find a source that claims he meets GNG, so if there is one out there I'd like to see it in the article--otherwise it should be deleted. Lord Arador (talk) 12:21, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Even though I nominated this for deletion I can certainly see both sides of the argument. Are mayoral press secretaries inherently notable? Are they not akin to unelected politicians, who will generate a certain flow of ephemeral news coverage related to the politics of the job rather than the individual behind it? Usually unelected politicians fail to clear the bar at AfD even if there are a dozen published news sources about their campaign. My own sentiment is often to keep such things, but I'm outside of consensus on this. If ruled notable: this needs to be mercilessly despammed. Carrite (talk) 15:56, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete tend to agree with everyone else. I checked factiva and sorted by relevance - the top hits are either press releases, brief mentions, or about other nathan ballards. The fact that when I delved into the sources I was unable to find quotes from them also suggests that the article is puffed up to make him appear more N than he really is. SmartSE (talk) 17:07, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I disagree with nomination for deletion. There is a ton of third party validation as others have mentioned in daily newspapers[5][6][7][8] , but maybe there is some spam to be cleaned up in the article. He got a quote of the year from the San Francisco Chronicle in 2011. He has been called a "public relations guru" and a "respected crisis communications expert" by the Oakland Tribune/San Jose Mercury News. Think time could be better spent. He is notable and meets the requirements. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fightin8th (talk • contribs) 18:11, 11 April 2012 (UTC) — Fightin8th (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Comment Ballard (and this Wikipedia article) is a go-to source. See http://www.nbcbayarea.com/news/politics/Mirkarimis-Future-Winds-Trhough-A-Political-Circus-143741786.html for a recent example. PoliticoDC (talk) 20:48, 11 April 2012 (UTC) — PoliticoDC (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Blocked sock 86.** IP (talk) 21:23, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment PoliticoDC and Fightn8th are right. The page should stay up. Ballard meets GNG. Journalists often seek his take and quote him as a “Democratic strategist.” One from the NYT site from 2011: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/07/us/07bcstevens.html This outlet is a credible independent third-party source and Ballard’s frequent comments in it, and other outlets, as a "strategist" tend to demonstrate GNG. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ballygrand (talk • contribs) 22:10, 11 April 2012 (UTC) — Ballygrand (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Blocked sock 86.** IP (talk) 21:23, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment SmarstSE writes: "delved into the sources" and "was unable to find quotes from them." Here is a link to a newspaper article deleted by SmartSE where Ballard is described as a “high-profile public relations professional”; by any reasonable reading it is an unambiguous reference to Ballard: http://www.modbee.com/2012/02/19/v-print/2077281/patterson-pays-50k-for-officials.html SmartSE also was "unable to find" language describing Ballard describing as a “public relations guru.” Although the original link in the Oakland Tribune is now missing, its unambiguous reference to Ballard as a "public relations guru" is widely referenced and repeated on many different websites including this one http://robocaster.com/pasadenastarnews/podcast-episode-home/california-ci_19344174/oakland-mayor-jean-quan-loses-her-choice-for-port-commission.aspx here on Radaris: http://news.radaris.com/news/Nathan/Ballard and in many of these search results: http://www.google.com/search?q=oakland+tribune+public+relations+guru&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a#q=oakland+tribune+%22public+relations+guru%22+ballard&hl=en&client=firefox-a&hs=GER&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&prmd=imvns&ei=YfyFT8_hMKWTiQKygNnRDw&start=10&sa=N&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_qf.,cf.osb&fp=22554257339ab534&biw=1240&bih=597 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ballygrand (talk • contribs) 22:27, 11 April 2012 (UTC) — Ballygrand (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Blocked sock 86.** IP (talk) 21:23, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Info: The creator of this article was blocked for sockpuppetry, and for running a paid group account. 86.** IP (talk) 23:33, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is not my main concern. Rather it's the spammy tone combined with the very valid question of whether — regardless of the piece's mass of green links showing — this is actually a subject meeting notability guidelines for inclusion at all. It's a close call and something that should be ruled upon at AfD. Carrite (talk) 15:55, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but there's a huge conversation by SPAs above. Maybe they aren't Expewikiwriter. Maybe they aren't socks. But they are all under investigation as socks, and admins judging consensus should probably not be closing this as keep because of that conversation until the Sockpuppet investigation closes. 86.** IP (talk) 17:39, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The notability is at least questionable (and I'm inclined to agree with previous analyses by Lord Arador and SmartSE that argue he's not notable). I also find WP:CSD#G11 and WP:NOTADVERT relevant - this isn't an encyclopedic article, it's a puff piece; the author of it, User:Expewikiwriter is known to have abused sources quite a bit (link is one example), so, even if the notability issues were settled, this would need a fundamental, from-scratch rewrite before we could use it - the situation described in WP:CSD#G11. I can't see how something can be a Speedy Deletion criterion for really blatant cases, but merely blatant cases, which also have notability issues, can't be deleted through AfD for that reason. 86.** IP (talk) 23:28, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Don't Delete - Evidence of Ballard’s notability in his field is strong. I checked all the links to the cited third party sources, and was able to find all of this easily: Politico calls Ballard a “veteran Democratic strategist,” Media Bistro calls him a “political heavyweight,” the Oakland Tribune calls him a “public relations guru” and a “respected crisis communications expert,” the Modesto Bee calls him a “high-profile public relations professional,” the San Francisco Chronicle calls him a “spinmeister” and a “crisis manager.” The Chronicle has awarded him several quotes of the week and a quote of the year. Newsweek gave him a quote of the week. The Chronicle and the Examiner both wrote “greatest hits” stories about his quotes. He comments in the media all the time. And, in further evidence of notability, he was the target of a satire in the Bay Guardian. So the notability argument does not work. As to the other arguments about Wikipedia rules, I am a new to this and that is better left to the rest of you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kourtney Karavaggio (talk • contribs) 02:09, 12 April 2012 (UTC) — Kourtney Karavaggio (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Blocked sock 86.** IP (talk) 21:23, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 16:30, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 16:30, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I'm marking this with the "not a vote" tag. I want to assume goodwill on behalf of all of the new voices chiming in to say the article should be kept, but considering that Expewikiwriter abused many socks, I have to ask if anyone's run a sockpuppet check on any of these SPAs yet.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 09:02, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Artie04. It's complicated so taking a while. 86.** IP (talk) 06:41, 18 April 2012 (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.