Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Morton Brilliant (2nd nomination)
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 delete. The discussion is principally concerned with whether the coverage of the subject is too superficial to confer notability, and whether or not this coverage is about a single event per WP:BLP1E. The prevailing sentiment (even when Kittybrewster's comment is disregarded per WP:JNN) is that these questions should be answered in the affirmative, leading to the article's deletion. It may be restored, of course, if the subject gains new notability. Sandstein 08:02, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
AfDs for this article:
- Morton Brilliant (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)
This WP:COATRACK of a minor Democratic operative has a severe WP:BLP and WP:ONEEVENT problem. Also, WP:NOT#NEWS. (NB my potential conflict of interest: this is a fellow Brandeis alum, albeit one of the opposite party. I don't know the man.) There are a handful of Google news hits not related to this event that quote Brilliant in passing, but it would be pure wikipuffery to string those together into an article. Anything really notable here is already in History_of_Wikipedia#Controversies. THF (talk) 00:56, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Additional datum. Brilliant's current job is "Senior Vice President" at The Strategy Group, a direct mail firm that flunks WP:BUSINESS; TSG is a partnership, and a senior vice president ranks below "partner" there. THF (talk) 13:01, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Additional additional data: TSG was one of the major recipients of money from the Obama campaign (well over $7 million), and it was noted in NYT, and other papers for that. The article has a plenitude of cites, even though everything taggable has been tagged for some reason or another. TSG is "notable" even though it does not have a WP article. WP can not confer notability by having an article, NOR does not having an article mean something is not notable. Collect (talk) 14:58, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Nominator, WP:COATRACK is a controversial essay, which recently failed a straw poll to become a guideleine. No amount of alphabet soup acronyms can cover this fact.Ikip (talk) 22:48, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Additional additional data: TSG was one of the major recipients of money from the Obama campaign (well over $7 million), and it was noted in NYT, and other papers for that. The article has a plenitude of cites, even though everything taggable has been tagged for some reason or another. TSG is "notable" even though it does not have a WP article. WP can not confer notability by having an article, NOR does not having an article mean something is not notable. Collect (talk) 14:58, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak delete doesn't seem individually notable and no obvious redirect candidate (addendum: maybe Cathy_Cox#Wikipedia_controversy?). JJL (talk) 01:15, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I added a ref to show that he was alredy well known nationally before the story broke. DGG (talk) 01:30, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment that's helpful, but still it's an opinion piece. I only found one gnews hit for his name [1], and his classmates.com web page is on the first page of ghits for him. For someone well-known I'd expect more. He seems best known by bloggers. JJL (talk) 01:51, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree with JJL, these references don't sway me. --Crusio (talk) 16:06, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. That footnote is the very epitome of Wikipuffery. There are literally dozens of political operatives of both parties who would be "notable" by that standard. Taylor Griffin is a redlink, and he actually is nationally known. To repeat: a glancing mention in a 32,000-circulation newspaper opinion column about a different subject does not create notability. The standard is significant independent coverage. THF (talk) 02:50, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- it seems to be an opinion piece by a regular political commentator for a major newspaper in that region, and that counts as a RS for opinion. Of course there are dozens of political operatives who are notable by this standard. There might even be hundreds. Lets get them in Wp, if we have sources. NOT PAPER. DGG (talk) 03:19, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- 32,000 circulation is by definition "not major." And a single sentence in that paper is not "significant independent coverage." Wikipedia is WP:NOT a directory, either, as your argument seems to assume that the encyclopedia is supposed to index everyone who has ever been mentioned in a newspaper. THF (talk) 03:26, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd advise not getting too caught up in your own AfD, THF. Let the process proceed! JJL (talk) 13:01, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- 32,000 circulation is by definition "not major." And a single sentence in that paper is not "significant independent coverage." Wikipedia is WP:NOT a directory, either, as your argument seems to assume that the encyclopedia is supposed to index everyone who has ever been mentioned in a newspaper. THF (talk) 03:26, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- it seems to be an opinion piece by a regular political commentator for a major newspaper in that region, and that counts as a RS for opinion. Of course there are dozens of political operatives who are notable by this standard. There might even be hundreds. Lets get them in Wp, if we have sources. NOT PAPER. DGG (talk) 03:19, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:42, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:43, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep as per DGG. The article is not complimentary to him, but that's a function of his own behavior, not any bias in the article's description of him. He is reasonably prominent in multiple major statewide campaigns -- more than satisfies the requirements of WP:POLITICIAN. Ray (talk) 18:53, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Sure, it's a reliably sourced opinion that he was "nationally well known" before the 2006 incident. But what does that prove? Even if it were objectively true that he was nationally well known, that still wouldn't translate to Wikipedia:Notability. Notability is neither fame nor importance. The opinion piece fails to show notability because it doesn't discuss Brilliant in any significant way.
The bulk of the article's sourcing pertains, of course, not to the subject's series of jobs as campaign manager, but rather to his newsworthy little bit of mischief at Wikipedia in 2006. Wikipedia is not Wikinews, and this article is a BLP1E. Wikipedia can flirt with certain types of coatrack articles where notability is dubious, but when it comes to BLP's, standards must be strictly adhered to. This biography of a non-notable living person must be hidden from view using the "delete" tool, unless better and more substantial sources are introduced that actually demonstrate Wikipedia:Notability. 160.39.213.152 (talk) 03:49, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Apart from the sources related to his Wikipedia adventure (which is just one event covered elsewhere), there are only two sources: one to Sourcewatch (a wiki and therefore not a reliable source) and one to the above-mentioned opinion piece found by DGG. The latter is actually not about Brilliant, but about Cathy Cox and only mentions Brilliant in passing. Does not meet WP:N. --Crusio (talk) 11:56, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Directly WP related for one event -- but he is notable for other actions as well in his life. [2], [3] establish fully sufficient notability. A lot more than most have, in fact. Collect (talk) 15:22, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Also mentions by NYT in [4], [5], [6] , [7] thus making him notable as a spokesman, and as for his own opinions as well. How many cites does one need? <g> Collect (talk) 15:29, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Not many, if any are about him. Those are all passing mentions of him acting as a spokesperson for others. In the books he appears on one page each time--a passing reference. Where has he bee noted rather than merely mentioned? JJL (talk) 15:33, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- An interesting standard -- his own particular opinions make it into the NYT and you cavil that it is "only" a single line at a time? Amazingly enough, the same cavil works for almost every cite on Obama in the NYT before he ran for President <g>. And applies to every person who has been a press secretary -- many of whom are, indeed, found in WP. Add to that the WP affair, and he leaps over the "notability barrier" with ease. Aide to Senator Hollings, Governor Hodges and more -- all well before the WP affair. The claim, recall, was that he was notable for ONLY ONE thing - that is the basis for the AfD after all is said and done. Once that claim is broken, the rationale for the AfD fails. And note that "press secretary" is sufficiently notable for a large number of WP articles in the first place - even when they have never made the NYT. End of cavils I trust <g> Collect (talk) 16:42, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- You have misunderstood JJL's "cavil." The problem with the sources you link to is not that they only devote a "single line" to Brilliant. The problem is they say nothing at all about him that can be used to write a Wikipedia article about him. What you call JJL's "interesting standard" is, in fact, Wikipedia's standard. By contrast, the standard you apparently seek to apply--that press secretaries to notable people are automatically notable--is disfavored. 160.39.213.152 (talk) 17:31, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The articles are in plenitude and provide some of his own opinions. Most articles which quote people are quoting their opinions, so that cavil makes little sense. The issue is whether he is notable without considering the WP affair -- and that is proven in spades. It is not necessary that the newspapers quoting the person provide a biography of him at all. They prove notability, which is all that is required of them. Collect (talk) 19:15, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- You have misunderstood JJL's "cavil." The problem with the sources you link to is not that they only devote a "single line" to Brilliant. The problem is they say nothing at all about him that can be used to write a Wikipedia article about him. What you call JJL's "interesting standard" is, in fact, Wikipedia's standard. By contrast, the standard you apparently seek to apply--that press secretaries to notable people are automatically notable--is disfavored. 160.39.213.152 (talk) 17:31, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- An interesting standard -- his own particular opinions make it into the NYT and you cavil that it is "only" a single line at a time? Amazingly enough, the same cavil works for almost every cite on Obama in the NYT before he ran for President <g>. And applies to every person who has been a press secretary -- many of whom are, indeed, found in WP. Add to that the WP affair, and he leaps over the "notability barrier" with ease. Aide to Senator Hollings, Governor Hodges and more -- all well before the WP affair. The claim, recall, was that he was notable for ONLY ONE thing - that is the basis for the AfD after all is said and done. Once that claim is broken, the rationale for the AfD fails. And note that "press secretary" is sufficiently notable for a large number of WP articles in the first place - even when they have never made the NYT. End of cavils I trust <g> Collect (talk) 16:42, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Not many, if any are about him. Those are all passing mentions of him acting as a spokesperson for others. In the books he appears on one page each time--a passing reference. Where has he bee noted rather than merely mentioned? JJL (talk) 15:33, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Also mentions by NYT in [4], [5], [6] , [7] thus making him notable as a spokesman, and as for his own opinions as well. How many cites does one need? <g> Collect (talk) 15:29, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Simply not notable as an individual. Redirect to History of Wikipedia#Controversies if we must, but there is nary a source that tells us anything about him. Rockpocket 20:10, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Cursory search of Gnews reveals that after being fired, he was director of the South Carolina Democratic Party, and currently a senior vice president to a major political consulting firm with close ties to the White House. Ray (talk) 01:00, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- And note that neither cite says anything about Brilliant other than the resume line -- even though one is a press release and has much more incentive to puff Brilliant's biography than the Wikipedia editors who are inexplicably insisting that the "significant independent coverage" requirement of WP:N does not have to be significant, or even substantive. There are a hundred state party directors and the only ones who have Wikipedia entries are the ones who did something else notable (cf. Art Torres) or have written orphan autobiographies that no one has gotten around to deleting. THF (talk) 01:45, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I object to you mischaracterization of the AJC source, which gives a bit more than the resume line. Also, you appear to have made an error in your own logic: Mr. Brilliant is a state party director, who has done something else notable (i.e. gotten fired over misuse of Wikipedia in a gubernatorial campaign in another state). Regardless, I continue to maintain that the positions he's held in various major subnational level campaigns qualifies him as a "major figure" in those elections, meeting the recently revised version of WP:POLITICIAN. Ray (talk) 14:41, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't want to play Argument Clinic, but I don't see how this guy meets WP:POLITICIAN. Notability doesn't transfer. Every politician has several aides, and, while a Steve Schmidt or David Axelrod is notable because of their role in national campaigns that generates a tremendous amount of biographical press coverage, these are subnational campaigns, and not even subnational campaigns in the top 25 of importance in any given year, and he's never the story beyond the squib of being hired, with the one notable exception that is already in its own article. "Major figure" in this context is the person who finishes second or third in the gubernatorial race, not the six advisors to the winner. The fact that one can string together twelve NEXIS hits to list the long-outdated quotes a flack gave about the ephemeral progress of a campaign does not create notability. Again: "significant independent coverage" from which a biography can be written. THF (talk) 15:27, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I will quote the relevant portion of WP:POLITICIAN: "Major figures in national or first-level sub-national political races." I would say that a campaign manager for a gubernatorial race who made the news himself, who was prior to that the spokesman for another first-level subnational race, who was subsequently chair of a state party, more than qualifies. Notability means "worthy of note," not "material exists from which to write a comprehensive biography of the subject." There is nothing wrong with permanent limited biographies of people of interest. As for coverage, we have unearthed a 3-paragraph profile which dates from before the scandal, significant coverage surrounding his scandal, etc. The usual rule for general notability is "2 sources," possibly modified by one-event. We have more than one event, more than one important role, and a heckuva lot more than 2 sources. And, for the record, it was unnecessary to use a proprietary database like Lexis. My tool for this exercise was nothing more complicated than Google. Ray (talk) 17:10, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't want to play Argument Clinic, but I don't see how this guy meets WP:POLITICIAN. Notability doesn't transfer. Every politician has several aides, and, while a Steve Schmidt or David Axelrod is notable because of their role in national campaigns that generates a tremendous amount of biographical press coverage, these are subnational campaigns, and not even subnational campaigns in the top 25 of importance in any given year, and he's never the story beyond the squib of being hired, with the one notable exception that is already in its own article. "Major figure" in this context is the person who finishes second or third in the gubernatorial race, not the six advisors to the winner. The fact that one can string together twelve NEXIS hits to list the long-outdated quotes a flack gave about the ephemeral progress of a campaign does not create notability. Again: "significant independent coverage" from which a biography can be written. THF (talk) 15:27, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I object to you mischaracterization of the AJC source, which gives a bit more than the resume line. Also, you appear to have made an error in your own logic: Mr. Brilliant is a state party director, who has done something else notable (i.e. gotten fired over misuse of Wikipedia in a gubernatorial campaign in another state). Regardless, I continue to maintain that the positions he's held in various major subnational level campaigns qualifies him as a "major figure" in those elections, meeting the recently revised version of WP:POLITICIAN. Ray (talk) 14:41, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- And note that neither cite says anything about Brilliant other than the resume line -- even though one is a press release and has much more incentive to puff Brilliant's biography than the Wikipedia editors who are inexplicably insisting that the "significant independent coverage" requirement of WP:N does not have to be significant, or even substantive. There are a hundred state party directors and the only ones who have Wikipedia entries are the ones who did something else notable (cf. Art Torres) or have written orphan autobiographies that no one has gotten around to deleting. THF (talk) 01:45, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. and Crusio. Trying to use Wikipedia to smear your opponents is, regrettably, common enough not to confer notability. JohnCD (talk) 12:27, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom amd Crusio. Notability policy is clear, passing mention in a few articles is not sufficient, nor is passing mention in a book. Nil Einne (talk) 16:29, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete editing Wikipedia - whether for good or bad, for political reasons or not, for pay or otherwise - doesn't make you notable. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 06:17, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- And it is not the single event which is the basis for his notability. By the way, for WP to excise all mention of people who were noted in mainstream media as abusing WP would seem to also possibly be notable to the mainstream media, which I trust is not what is desired. Collect (talk) 11:21, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Nobody is calling for excising "all mention" of such people, just for neutral application of the rules. Brilliant will still be in History_of_Wikipedia#Controversies, and no one is calling for the deletion of that article or the line describing Brilliant's activities. If anything, there is a systematic bias where Wikipedia is overemphasized in Wikipedia articles. THF (talk) 13:26, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Straw man. He is mentioned in passing in a few places, but no where has he been the subject of "significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject." (WP:BIO in a nutshell). Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:47, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- And it is not the single event which is the basis for his notability. By the way, for WP to excise all mention of people who were noted in mainstream media as abusing WP would seem to also possibly be notable to the mainstream media, which I trust is not what is desired. Collect (talk) 11:21, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. The sources all just give trivial mentions, not enough to show notability.Yobmod (talk) 12:44, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Non-trivial mentions: [8], [9]
- {ay article from SC "State" starts "State - August 11, 2001 - B3 METRO/REGION HODGES AIDE HEADS FOR LAW SCHOOL The South Carolina press corps doesn't have Morton Brilliant to push around anymore. Brilliant, the 28-year-old deputy chief of staff for Gov. Jim Hodges, has relinquished his post for a seat in the USC Law School class of 2004. Brilliant, who has served as Hodges' top spokesman since April 2000, is not abandoning the Democratic governor, however. He will remain on the payroll, working on long-term planning and doing some speech writing. The speech-writing... " which strongly suggests notability in SC. "State - November 1, 2000 - A12 EDITORIAL IT'S PRETTY OBVIOUS WHO'S TRYING TO MISLEAD IN THIS DEBATE "This is all a desperate attempt to distract from the fact that the anti-lottery campaign has a history of exaggerating and misstating the facts." -Morton Brilliant, spokesman for Gov. Jim Hodges, on leave to work for his pro-lottery campaign Wow. Now that takes some nerve. The anti-lottery coalition - made up for the most part of people who have nothing to gain if they win but the satisfaction of knowing they kept their government out of the gambling business -... " Brilliant was working on a specific lottery campaign. "State - March 14, 2001 - B2 METRO/REGION LIVE WIRE: HODGES' SPOKESMAN WORKED IN POLITICS, NEWSPAPERS * Could you please give me a little of the professional background on Gov. Jim Hodges' spokesman, Morton Brilliant? I just hadn't heard much about him before he took the position. With thanks to the governor's press office: Brilliant, who lives in Columbia, currently serves as Gov. Hodges' deputy chief of staff and spokesman. In that role, he oversees the governor's communications office, and serves as one of the... " Biography printed in largest SC paper. "State - October 26, 2002 - B1 METRO/REGION DEMOCRATS, GOP SPAR OVER E-MAIL Gov. Jim Hodges' office says it can't find an e-mail sought by the state's Republicans, who contend the document raises questions about whether the governor's former chief of staff improperly influenced the awarding of a state contract. Governor's office spokesman Morton Brilliant said he's seen no evidence that the document ever existed. But Sam Griswold, a former member of Hodges' cabinet, said Friday that... " Brilliant was not just a "spokesperson" it appears. "State - March 11, 2007 - B7 METRO S.C. DEMOCRATIC DEBATE BACK IN LEAD South Carolina is back on track to hold the first Democratic presidential debate after organizers of a debate next month in New Hampshire have had to move their event back to June. The candidates have made firm commitments to House Majority Whip Jim Clyburn to appear at the April 26 debate at his alma mater, South Carolina State University in Orangeburg, said Morton Brilliant, chairman of the South Carolina Democratic Party. The 90-minute debate at the historically black college will be... " Notable as party chairman. So we establish he is notable, has had biographical articles in major newspapers, gotten substantial mentions (not just "single sentences" as implied heretofore) and so on. Sorry to give so many cites. Collect (talk) 16:32, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Cite No. 9 above, http://www.ajc.com/metro/content/shared-blogs/ajc/politicalinsider/entries/2006/08/11/time_for_the_august_break.html, is a newspaper chatroom discussion. The others are all a sentence or two (one mentioning the notable fact that he's starting law school!), and when they're more, it's to mention the Wikipedia controversy. You're proving my point that this is WP:PUFF of the highest order. THF (talk) 16:36, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- And the other cites where, for example, his bio is given in a newspaper? Seems that cavilling at one out of a dozen or more cites furnished does not win. Collect (talk) 16:53, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm an intelligent Bayesian. When the first three cites you give support my point more than yours, it's a reasonable inference that you don't have a case. When I litigated, I all too often saw parties with bogus cases try to defeat a summary judgment motion by overwhelming the judge with volumes and volumes of chaff. Improve the article and then argue that it meets WP:N, but the reality is that all you can do is string together a bunch of non-notable sentences like "Brilliant commented to the press about the presidential debate." Since one full-fledged profile would be enough to establish N, and you're instead wasting everyone's time with bogus cites, one can assume that profile doesn't exist. THF (talk) 17:02, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- "When in doubt, pound the table" is what you are now engaging in by assuming bad faith on my part. I gave a large number of cites, and your "proof by assertion" that they are bad cites is inane at best. Brilliant was quoted in roles OTHER than that of spokesperson, meaning that he was sufficiently notable for the newspaper to quote him in other than those roles. The "State" also included biographical information on him. He held a substantial number of political positions. Some of the articles went well past "single sentences" and all you do is assert that the cites are "bogus"? Thank you most kindly -- you make the point far better than I could do that the only real reason for removal of this article is that it is an embarassment to some politically involved people. Collect (talk) 11:44, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm an intelligent Bayesian. When the first three cites you give support my point more than yours, it's a reasonable inference that you don't have a case. When I litigated, I all too often saw parties with bogus cases try to defeat a summary judgment motion by overwhelming the judge with volumes and volumes of chaff. Improve the article and then argue that it meets WP:N, but the reality is that all you can do is string together a bunch of non-notable sentences like "Brilliant commented to the press about the presidential debate." Since one full-fledged profile would be enough to establish N, and you're instead wasting everyone's time with bogus cites, one can assume that profile doesn't exist. THF (talk) 17:02, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- And the other cites where, for example, his bio is given in a newspaper? Seems that cavilling at one out of a dozen or more cites furnished does not win. Collect (talk) 16:53, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- (outdent) We're still waiting for a cite with significant coverage, and you still haven't listed one, demanding that we defer to a short list of one-line "Brilliant said the governor likes ice cream" stories that the nomination already acknowledged existed. You've now made eight edits to this page without finding a single cite worth adding to the article to make it worth keeping. Do you like debating for the sake of debating, or are you trying to improve the encyclopedia? Instead of arguing here, fix the article if it's fixable. The reason this article is going to be deleted is that the article isn't fixable. THF (talk) 11:54, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- THF considering the only contributions you have made to the article is deleting other editors contributions and adding several tags, I would not speak to loudly about Collect adding references. I see Collect making a good faith effort to add contributions, whereas you haven't added a single one. Ikip (talk) 23:39, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I looked. There's nothing legitimate to add, which is why I made the nomination. Collect, apparently having run out of "The governor is against nun-beating" quotes, has added several sentences to the article that have nothing to do with Brilliant.[10] But now there are footnotes! Lots of footnotes! I look forward to the addition of the discussion of television shows that Brilliant might have watched, since there are many references in the New York Times to famous television shows, and then nobody could possibly argue that the article should be deleted for flunking WP:BIO. THF (talk) 23:49, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- "Could you please give me a little of the professional background on Gov. Jim Hodges' spokesman, Morton Brilliant? I just hadn't heard much about him before he took the position. With thanks to the governor's press office: Brilliant, who lives in Columbia, currently serves as Gov. Hodges' deputy chief of staff and spokesman. In that role, he oversees the governor's communications office, and serves as one of the ..." seems to not be "he likes ice cream." Brilliant worked on the pro-lottery campaign, for which I can give more cites. He is head of a state party, for which I can give more cites. As for your use of "assume bad faith" -- that I do find objectionable. The claim for deletion was that he was notoable for only ONE event. Clearly he is notable for more than one event, making that claim quite insufficient. The argument was NOT that the article is not "fixable" -- until just now. You just made the very first claim that that is the reason for deletion in this entire page <g>. Let's add a presidential connection at this point ... [11] "The Evanston based The Strategy Group--consultants on the Obama presidential campaign--named Douglas Herman as partner and added three senior vice presidents:
Sheila Nix in the Chicago office; Michael Berman in Philadelphia office, and Morton Brilliant in the Washington DC office." ""Morton's broad political experience, and especially his work with gubernatorial communications, has been an asset to Strategy Group clients since he first joined the firm in 2006," said Steve Stenberg, a Partner in the Washington, DC office. "We're pleased to elevate him to Senior Vice President." " "The Strategy Group is the nation's leading direct mail firm for Democratic candidates and progressive organizations. With offices in Los Angeles, Chicago, Philadelphia and Washington, DC, the firm has served as direct mail consultants to every Democratic Presidential campaign since Bill Clinton. In 2008, The Strategy Group was lead direct mail consultant to Obama for America, and Strategy Group partners served in key roles throughout the campaign." In short Brillian worked with Obama's campaign, and is going to work in Washington DC. Odds are pretty good that he is regarded as important. Holding the position of "Senior Vice President" in a firm with such avowed political connections with the President is, I suggest, notable. Members of "The Strategy Group" were in the Obama "inner circle" and donated heavily to the Obama campaign. More cites on request, and kindly do not attack the messenger. Collect (talk) 12:43, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, you've answered my question: you're more interested in debating than improving the encyclopedia. Nine edits to this page now,
zero to the article itself,and your best cite is a self-serving press release that doesn't meet WP:RS. NB that being "a senior vice president" (read: middle manager, ranking below "partner") for a direct mail firm--especially one like The Strategy Group that flunks WP:BUSINESS--isn't notable, either. (And Brilliant isn't even advertised on their website as one of their five most important members. And those five--Steven Stenberg, Terry Walsh, Peter Giangreco, Larry Grisolano, and Doug Herman--aren't notable, either.) THF (talk) 12:49, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]- Please redact your charges about not working on the article. "The Strategy Group" states that he is HEAD of that office. So much for "middle manager." The Strategy Group was noted as one of the top expenditures for the Obama campaign, noted as working in multiple states etc. So much for it not being notable <g>. Apparently their website is not updated -- but whether that is due to laziness or the fact that they are not the trademark holder for that name is moot. And saying a person is not notable because they do not have a WP article is bassackward reasoning to be sure. Using cached pages makes it easier to find info when a page has broken links on a website. [12], [13], [14] and so on. Thank you most kindly. Collect (talk) 13:20, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Absolutely false that TSG appointed Brilliant the "head" of the DC office. The head of the office is a partner. Brilliant is only a senior vp. I'm not saying TSG isn't notable because they don't have a wiki page. I'm saying they're not notable because they flunk WP:BUSINESS, and their five lead partners are not notable because they flunk WP:BIO. If Brilliant hadn't had the wiki-scandal, he wouldn't have an article either, which is why we have a BLP1E policy. THF (talk) 13:27, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Am I correct that you are saying Brilliant is not notable because the company is not notable because the founders of the company do not have WP articles on themselves and so therefore are not notable per se? An interesting sort of logic far removed from the start of this page to be sure. "Peter Giangreco" has five NYT mentions. Grisolano three. Morton Brilliant nineteen. He is a "senior vice president" of a company which was one of the largest employees of the Obama campaign. Both notable. Long resume (noted in his article now). The problem is that he embarasses some people. Not that he is known for one and ONLY one event. Collect (talk) 13:59, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- No, you're not correct. I've made my case, and won't repeat it, but your characterization of TSG is incorrect, and based entirely on a self-serving press release. THF (talk) 14:10, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Eh? Added NYT graph on TSG being a major recipient of money from the Obama campaign ($7.3 million). FEC filings showing the amounts. Many cites showing TSG members as officially part of the Obama campaign. Chicago Sun-Times cites which are *not* a press release as they have a proper by-line, etc. Article now has plenty of sources not to establish notability of TSG, which was your last big argument about "notability." Unless , of course, you feel that FEC, NYT etc. all rely on "self-serving press releases"? With all the new material in the article, I would ask that those who found it lacking in material reconsider their opinions for sure. Collect (talk) 14:54, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Lets not have an personal attacks "Well, you've answered my question: you're more interested in debating than improving the encyclopedia, You misunderstand WP:RED as much as you misunderstand WP:BIO." please. I suggest refactoring this out. I find it ironic that Collect is trying to contribute to wikipedia, while you are attempting to delete material from wikipedia, and you say he is "more interested in debating than improving the encyclopedia" Can anyone else see this irony? Ikip (talk) 23:22, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Eh? Added NYT graph on TSG being a major recipient of money from the Obama campaign ($7.3 million). FEC filings showing the amounts. Many cites showing TSG members as officially part of the Obama campaign. Chicago Sun-Times cites which are *not* a press release as they have a proper by-line, etc. Article now has plenty of sources not to establish notability of TSG, which was your last big argument about "notability." Unless , of course, you feel that FEC, NYT etc. all rely on "self-serving press releases"? With all the new material in the article, I would ask that those who found it lacking in material reconsider their opinions for sure. Collect (talk) 14:54, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- No, you're not correct. I've made my case, and won't repeat it, but your characterization of TSG is incorrect, and based entirely on a self-serving press release. THF (talk) 14:10, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Am I correct that you are saying Brilliant is not notable because the company is not notable because the founders of the company do not have WP articles on themselves and so therefore are not notable per se? An interesting sort of logic far removed from the start of this page to be sure. "Peter Giangreco" has five NYT mentions. Grisolano three. Morton Brilliant nineteen. He is a "senior vice president" of a company which was one of the largest employees of the Obama campaign. Both notable. Long resume (noted in his article now). The problem is that he embarasses some people. Not that he is known for one and ONLY one event. Collect (talk) 13:59, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Absolutely false that TSG appointed Brilliant the "head" of the DC office. The head of the office is a partner. Brilliant is only a senior vp. I'm not saying TSG isn't notable because they don't have a wiki page. I'm saying they're not notable because they flunk WP:BUSINESS, and their five lead partners are not notable because they flunk WP:BIO. If Brilliant hadn't had the wiki-scandal, he wouldn't have an article either, which is why we have a BLP1E policy. THF (talk) 13:27, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Please redact your charges about not working on the article. "The Strategy Group" states that he is HEAD of that office. So much for "middle manager." The Strategy Group was noted as one of the top expenditures for the Obama campaign, noted as working in multiple states etc. So much for it not being notable <g>. Apparently their website is not updated -- but whether that is due to laziness or the fact that they are not the trademark holder for that name is moot. And saying a person is not notable because they do not have a WP article is bassackward reasoning to be sure. Using cached pages makes it easier to find info when a page has broken links on a website. [12], [13], [14] and so on. Thank you most kindly. Collect (talk) 13:20, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment this argument is digressing to whether or not TSG is notable. The article now contains a lot of references. Some mention Brilliant in passing, others don't mention him at all but just mention the company where he works, TSG, in passing. I really don't see how these sources establish notability for Brilliant besides WP1E (nor for TSG, for that matter: most sources name people that worked for Obama's campaign and mentions where they work. Obama is notable, of course, but I am not so sure that his direct mail firm or his housekeeper are). --Crusio (talk) 15:38, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per DGG. And I appreciated what I read here Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Morton Brilliant rkmlai (talk) 03:41, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Strange, because that earlier discussion--which predates BLP1E--had no substantive arguments in it. One possible exception is the guy who argued that deleting Brilliant would lead to redlinks in the "three gubernatorial candidates" he worked for, except no one mentions Brilliant in those articles outside of the ONEEVENT in Cox -- because, let's face it, the guy isn't notable enough to mention in the Cox or Gregoire articles otherwise. Nobody researching Gregoire cares that Brilliant used to work for her. THF (talk) 04:26, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Perhaps the fact that a Gregoire campaign staffer edited her article, keeping very close tabs on it, affected any such mention? This is confirmed by the obit of the person who did that work. Collect (talk) 13:52, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Amazingly enough, guess who just deleted the fact from the Gregoire article after saying the fact Brilliant was not mentioned in it was important?' Seems to be a gigantic COI for a person to say something is not in an article, and be the same person who deletes it from the article! Collect (talk) 21:31, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Can you be a little bit less dishonest? You added it to the article after the discussion here. It was a clear violation of WP:POINT because you made no effort to add the thirty or so staff members of equal importance. THF (talk) 21:33, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I request that you redact your charge. You had written " the guy isn't notable enough to mention in the Cox or Gregoire articles otherwise. Nobody researching Gregoire cares that Brilliant used to work for her." and I felt that means you did not think anyone had provided a cite for the article. I provided a full and accurate cite for the statement in the Gregoire article -- and someone happened to remove it, after having said no one cared <g>. And Brilliant was citred as the "person in charge" for the recount, remember? No "thirty or so staff members of equal importance" he was number one. Thank you most kindly, but I suggest that you are entirely too anxious to delete an article which another editor is doing his damndest to bring up to the highest WP standards, and that you are deliberately engaging in an effort to prevent improvement of an article in order to pursue your goal. I further submit that such deliberate sabotage of an article prevents your claims from being taken seriously by any who believe in the goal of WP as being an encyclopedia. Collect (talk) 21:42, 7 February 2009 (UTC). Collect (talk) 21:42, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Amazingly enough, guess who just deleted the fact from the Gregoire article after saying the fact Brilliant was not mentioned in it was important?' Seems to be a gigantic COI for a person to say something is not in an article, and be the same person who deletes it from the article! Collect (talk) 21:31, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Perhaps the fact that a Gregoire campaign staffer edited her article, keeping very close tabs on it, affected any such mention? This is confirmed by the obit of the person who did that work. Collect (talk) 13:52, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Strange, because that earlier discussion--which predates BLP1E--had no substantive arguments in it. One possible exception is the guy who argued that deleting Brilliant would lead to redlinks in the "three gubernatorial candidates" he worked for, except no one mentions Brilliant in those articles outside of the ONEEVENT in Cox -- because, let's face it, the guy isn't notable enough to mention in the Cox or Gregoire articles otherwise. Nobody researching Gregoire cares that Brilliant used to work for her. THF (talk) 04:26, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:3RR please be advised of [15] and [16] as proof that THF will, in fact, deliberately editwar in order to delete the Morton Brillian article. Thank you most kindly. Collect (talk) 21:46, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Sweet mother of Pearl, Collect. Using your logic here, this edit is an example that you're willing to be WP:POINTy to keep the article (note the inaccurate summary).[17] While these two edits are proof that you are will, in fact, deliberately edit war to keep the Mortan Brilliant article.[18][19] Seriously, both of you need to stop edit warring on Christine Gregoire and use the freaking discussion page. --Bobblehead (rants) 22:13, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Cptnono has now emended the entry -- as the article has a specific section on the 2004 election and recount, material germane to it is properly there now. Thanks! And as I consider MB to be notable in the first place, the only reason for deleting any mention of him would be what? Collect (talk) 22:19, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Please keep in mind that the nominator who Collect is arguing with was just booted for 3RR a violation. Ikip (talk) 23:01, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Cptnono has now emended the entry -- as the article has a specific section on the 2004 election and recount, material germane to it is properly there now. Thanks! And as I consider MB to be notable in the first place, the only reason for deleting any mention of him would be what? Collect (talk) 22:19, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment despite the hysterical antics on this page and others, I am not moved to change my delete vote above. --Crusio (talk) 22:44, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:ONEEVENT and WP:N. Morton Brilliant is only notable because of him getting fired after someone in Cox's campaign edited Wikipedia's articles, so that event (and Brilliant's involvement in that event) should be rolled into the Cathy Cox article per WP:ONEEVENT. Fortunately that event is already in Cox's article. All other mentions of him in Reliable Sources that have been provided so far are of him being quoted in articles about other subjects. This seems to indicate that he fails the general notability guideline as, outside the one event, there is no significant coverage of him in reliable sources. --Bobblehead (rants) 22:48, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong keep per Collect's excellent arguments above. WP:BLP1E is regularly abused and misinterpreted to mean "delete any article for any person whose notability can be traced backed to a single event, regardless of anything else that has occurred in their life", and this selective misuse of policy is only further perpetuated here. Even for those who believe BLP1E is a valid justification to not have an article for Morton, the refusal to follow BLP1E's guidance and renaming the article -- "In such cases, a redirect or merge are usually the better options. Cover the event, not the person." -- is only further evidence that the policy is being abused. The absurd statement:
- "There are a handful of Google news hits not related to this event that quote Brilliant in passing, but it would be pure wikipuffery to string those together into an article." Is the the real puffery is stating that the Associated Press and Seattle Times are trivial. Ikip (talk) 22:48, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Sir, I said that Brilliant's mention in these sources was trivial, not that the sources were trivial. Other than the ONEEVENT, nothing in the New York Times constitutes significant independent coverage of Brilliant as the subject of an article. You'll note that the vast majority of cites in the Brilliant article don't even mention his name. THF (talk) 23:05, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Sir, my mistake, I removed many of the references which don't mention his name to talk. Again, with one event "In such cases, a redirect or merge are usually the better options. Cover the event, not the person." you have not suggested a redirect or merge. In addition, Brilliant's involvement in the following: "Democrat Christine Gregoire in the Washington state gubernatorial race, a very close race in which Gregoire defeated Republican Dino Rossi after two recounts. He was also deputy campaign manager for Jim Hodges' successful South Carolina governor's race in 1998, and worked as Hodges' Deputy Chief of Staff. Before that, he was a political director for the South Carolina Democratic Party." make it more than one event. Ikip (talk) 00:17, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Sir, I said that Brilliant's mention in these sources was trivial, not that the sources were trivial. Other than the ONEEVENT, nothing in the New York Times constitutes significant independent coverage of Brilliant as the subject of an article. You'll note that the vast majority of cites in the Brilliant article don't even mention his name. THF (talk) 23:05, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - not notable. Kittybrewster ☎ 00:16, 8 February 2009 (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.