Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robert Satiacum Jr.

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 no consensus. Opinions are divided, and the collective nature of this AfD makes it difficult to discern a consensus. If this is to be pursued further, I recommend individual renominations, beginning with the persons least likely to be considered notable enough for inclusion. Sandstein 09:14, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Satiacum Jr.

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

Faithless electors from the 2016 U.S. presidential election are not inherently notable. Coverage provided does not establish notability. These biographies were created due to

WP:NOTNEWS, they should not be articles. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:10, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:13, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:13, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete.
WP:BLP1E. TheCrazedBeast (talk) 01:27, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete. They should all be shoved into a paragraph on the 2016 election, if that.—Chowbok ☠ 04:11, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Precedent set that faithless electors are notable. See
talk) 04:55, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
- I looked through most of them. A number of them pass
  WP:POLITICIAN because they were state legislators, but others I saw don't pass GNG either and I'll nominate them later. I kept focused on 2016 at first. – Muboshgu (talk) 06:02, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Keep. I don't think any decision to delete should be made in the next couple of months, in any case. This election was particularly contentious, and in the past 20 years the Electoral College in the US has become a hot button issue (at least around election times). Several people of varying political affiliations and levels of influence have expressed extreme dissatisfaction with the system as it stands, and Wikipedia is a first (sometimes only) stop resource for people who are researching an issue. If, in a year or so, the relevance has died down, then deletion may be warranted. Dianaramadani (talk) 15:40, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Sounds like you want to
  WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. We don't use Wikipedia to advocate for, say, abolishing the Electoral College. This is a discussion about the notability of the 2016 faithless electors, not a debate on the Electoral College. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:28, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Suprun achieved notability by going public with his vote in advance; by publishing an article in The New York TImes about it; by becoming the subject of controversy himself relating to his past and the 9/11 disaster and a spotty, if not dubious, résumé; and by being the only known Republican elector to refuse to vote for Trump (the Ron Paul elector chose to remain anonymous; while a mention of Art Sisneros, the Republican elector who resigned rather than vote for Trump, is included in this entry). I agree with the above comment that "I don't think any decision to delete should be made in the next couple of months, in any case. This election was particularly contentious, and in the past 20 years the Electoral College in the US has become a hot button issue (at least around election times)." Personally, I would argue to keep this entry and at least some of the others for the time being, particularly since protests regarding this election are likely to carry on to Inauguration Day 2017 and perhaps beyond.

NicholasNotabene (talk) 21:57, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

- @NicholasNotabene: Keep which ones? We need specificity here. – Muboshgu (talk) 03:50, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Clearly,
WP:BLP1E. 47.150.54.153 (talk) 00:51, 23 December 2016 (UTC)— 47.150.54.153 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply
]

Delete per
MelbourneStar☆^talk 11:52, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Strong Keep - significant coverage in reliable sources. In addition to the LA Times and Politico write-ups already in the article, which are expressly about Satiacum, you have this ABC news story about Satiacum, this Seattle Times article about Satiacum and Brett Chiafalo, and additional, supporting coverage in numerous sources, including this and this and this, to give just three. Regardless of other notability qualifications, Satiacum meets our general notability standards. Just take a look through Google News.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 16:37, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum: Regarding BLP1E, Satiacum achieved fame by declaring that he might not vote for Clinton, but coverage has also discussed his activism.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 16:42, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

- @3family6: this is a multi-article AfD, and your comments don't account for all of them, only Satiacum and Chafalo. What do you have to say about the others? – Muboshgu (talk) 17:34, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Regarding the other elector articles:

Keep Christopher Suprun - in addition to the very extensive coverage regarding his promise to vote for Kasich rather than Trump, there is extensive coverage of the controversy over whether or not he was a 9/11 responder.

Merge Esther John into the 2016 faithless elector article - no coverage of her as an individual.

Weak keep for Levi Guerra - extensive coverage of her as an individual. However, I'm not sure, per BLP1E, that this is enough to justify her inclusion. Personally, I think that she is notable, but I also have to ensure that community guidelines are followed. There is continued coverage of the legal case involving her and the other Washington faithless electors.

Weak keep for David Mulinix - same rationale as for Levi Guerra, minus the legal pursuing.

Weak keep for Bret Chiafalo - same rationale as for Guerra, and the continued coverage of legal pursuing.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 01:58, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - In response to the question posed by @Muboshgu:, I would suggest keeping the entries for Robert Satiacum Jr. and Chris Suprun, and rolling the other electors, Democratic and Republican, into those two entries. Satiacum is noteworthy for his continued tribal activism and for casting his vote for two persons entirely outside the political mainstream, while Suprun is noteworthy for being the sole (known) Republican elector to cast his vote for someone other than Donald Trump. In fact, mentions of Art Sisneros, the Republican elector who resigned (rather than vote for Trump), and of the unidentified Republican elector who anonymously voted for Ron Paul are already rolled into in the Suprun article. I have already elaborated above on why Suprun has more notoriety than most of the other electors. My underlying argument, however, is to look at each elector individually rather than treat them all en banc as if they were a single common phenomenon. They are not, even though it was the Clinton vs. Trump contest that brought the different phenomena, and disagreements, out into the open.

NicholasNotabene (talk) 22:27, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Robert Satiacum Jr, Delete all of the others. While I agree with the arguments for deleting the articles on most of the individual faithless electors, as they are notable for only one event, Robert Satiacum Jr is also notable for his radio show "Tribal Talk" and his activism. Satiacum also received coverage prior to the election for stating his plans to vote against Clinton,[1] and as NicholasNotabene stated, his votes were for people entirely outside the political mainstream.--Tdl1060 (talk) 23:53, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all . considering the context of this particular eletion--this is a mater of history, not of temporary news coverage DGG ( talk ) 00:42, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- This argument doesn't take into account
  WP:BLP1E. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:27, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Sure it does - WP:BLP1E is for when a person notable for one event will not remain particularly notable.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 02:22, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Christopher Suprun as the most notable of the crop; no opinion on the rest. bd2412 T 04:51, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per DGG BobLaRouche (talk) 20:37, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into the article on faithless electors of 2016. BrxBrx(talk)^{(please reply with { {re|BrxBrx}})} 23:59, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep though I am not ready to argue about the local notability guideline for living people (I am from ru-wiki). At the least keep a redirect from
Faithless electors in the United States presidential election, 2016. --Neolexx (talk) 14:38, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Merge All - These should be component articles in a piece called Faithless electors in the 2016 American Presidential election, not individual biographies. Each and every one is deletable under BLP-1E. Carrite (talk) 15:24, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge all as suggested above. Bearian (talk) 14:21, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Robert Satiacum Jr. has received coverage of his radio show and activism as far back as 2011. So he isn't just notable for the 2016 election, though that alone I think would be enough.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 15:20, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Plus to the comment above and to my initial "keep" it worth mention that he is listed at IMDb as a producer and actor. A movie of 2007 with him already here, some critics can be found way prior 2016 (example). --Neolexx (talk) 16:28, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per
WP:BLP1E, including Suprun and Satiacum, on the basis that other biographical details regarding Suprun and Satiacum are not sufficient on their own to demonstrate their notability independent of their role as faithless electors. Mélencron (talk) 00:26, 29 December 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.