Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Richard Ziser

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. "Delete" votes are mostly focused on the subject's unsuccessful Senate campaign and failure to meet NPOL, but do not address the argument that his other activities have received sufficient coverage to satisfy GNG. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 15:15, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Ziser

[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)

Failed U.S. Senate Candidate in 2004; Unelected official and activist with no notability to show for his work. Had some controversies, but they were minor and can be merged onto the election page. Doesn't pass WP:GNG, and the only coverage/sources on him are passing mentions on the Senate candidacy. Redditaddict6 9 08:00, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Redditaddict6 9 08:01, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nevada-related deletion discussions. Redditaddict6 9 08:01, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Redditaddict6 9 08:03, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have to say delete, page hasnt even been updated in nine years! Not only that but then he was just a very minor politician anyways..Antonio pain in the b*tt Martin (what do you mean?) 11:59, 27 August, 2018 (UTC)

The question to ask is, why did someone write an article about him 9 years ago?E.M.Gregory (talk) 10:50, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@E.M.Gregory: for the same reason most articles were written in 2007-2010, because nobody paid attention to the notability guidelines and not enough editors caught on to this. A ton of articles from then have been closed as deletes or redirects in the last year. Everyone then saw it as the place they could go make any article about anyone. Nobody knew the "rules". Redditaddict6 9 13:15, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NPOL and the "14-year test". SportingFlyer talk 01:29, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (I do run searches before giving an opinion.) Article is paltry. However, back in the dark ages (at the turn of the century,) Ziser led a successful campaign to amend the state Constitution to define marriage as "a man and a woman." The national press and Nevada press concur that he led it, he pushed it for 4 years, and the Constitution was amended. It may not be an, er... widely admired accomplishment, but it does mean that he got enough ink in the national press, books, and scholarly journals to pass WP:SIGCOV with flying colors.E.M.Gregory (talk) 10:44, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly, I don't see it - those articles don't appear to be about him. SportingFlyer talk 12:52, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@E.M.Gregory:, I don't see it either, but if you can provide two or more links to this I'd like to see them. Someone did say something about the 14 year rule, plus it's not like the state constitution section there matters much anymore since the Federal Gov. overrides that. Gay marriage is legal by state law in Nevada, anyways (check this link, it basically says that same-sex unions have been recognized there since October 2009, 5 years before the federal legislation). Redditaddict6 9 13:10, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm seeing it Proquest news archive searches, stories like: Anti-gay petition filed with the stateWhaley, Sean. Las Vegas Review - Journal; Las Vegas, Nev. [Las Vegas, Nev]05 Jan 2000: 1A. front page sotry with photo of Ziser filing the petition; SAME SEX MARRIAGES: Ballot question debated, Morrison, Jane Ann. Las Vegas Review - Journal; Las Vegas, Nev. [Las Vegas, Nev]12 Sep 2000: 2B. text: Richard Ziser... insisted his effort is simply to close a legal loophole so that Nevada won't have to recognize gay marriages from other states. The only way to overcome the huge financial advantage of Ziser's group - the Coalition for the Protection of Marriage in Nevada - is to "live in a loving, monogamous relationship and set examples of what gay marriages are about," said Steve Oates, a retired computer specialist. Ziser insisted the amendment is not a form of discrimination and that if the activists want to discuss changing the definition of marriage to include gay marriage, they should bring that out into the open and say so." (yada yada) And more similar stories, Some in national press. In addition, take a look at scholar and books. Heading up a movement that succeeds in amending a state constitution looks like notability to me.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:26, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note' that some editor has appended a list of sources to the article; I checked a couple of the links and they worked. Could be used to improve article. In addtion to sources that come up in searches.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:38, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@E.M.Gregory: would you support merging this article over to the 2004 Senate election? Just the stuff he was recognized for (gay marriage issues and candidacy) or potentially merging to another article such as gay marriage laws in U.S. states? Redditaddict6 9 22:31, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Let's let it run for a couple more days, not only to see what others think, but because I can often see more clearly after backing off for a few days.E.M.Gregory (talk) 23:13, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Religious Interests in Community Conflict: Beyond the Culture Wars,edited by Paul A. Djupe, Laura R. Olson, Baylor University Press, 2007, Chapter 3, "Sweet Land of Liberty; The Gary Marriage Amendment in Nevada," by Damore, Jelen and Bowers, pp. 51-72 discusses or cites Ziser on almost every page. It is only one of the several academic sources that discuss his anti-gay marriage work, which did continue at least up to 2015 to have INDEPTH coverage in the Nevada press, at that point the issue was maintaining the distinction between marriage and legal domestic partnership. This issue (gay marriage) is not one Ihave followed at all closely (well, I did happen to be walking past City Hall at the moment the first gay couple emerged legally married gay couple emerged, and I joined the clapping and threw a handful of the confetti somebody was handing out.) I am hoping that an editor more familiar with the politics of this over the last couple of decades ago will weigh in. If not, I'll revisit later in the week.E.M.Gregory (talk) 23:13, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good-Redditaddict6 9 23:26, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I still think KEEP. WP:SIGCOV coverage of him as a activist on social issues - opposing gay marriage and abortion. And he got the state constitution amended.E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:12, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The sourcing provided by Gregory shows that at least academics think that Ziser was key to the proposal passing in Nevada. I was serving as a missionary for The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in Nevada in 2000 and can say most assuredly that key to the success of the proposal was active encouraging of members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints to financially assist and assist with time the campaign. This included large financial contributions from areas that were not financially well-off, such as the region close to the Nevada Las Vegas Temple, and active support from Democrats who had served in the state legislature. Official political action requests on the part of the leadership of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is very rare, so when it happens it has a very high power to bring about results, and this was seen in the Protect Marriage Campaign.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:27, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:26, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:27, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep No matter where you stand on the same sex marriage issue (I am in favor), we ought to have policy-compliant biographies of the most important activists on both sides of that controversy. The sources brought forward in this discussion are adequate to establish notabilty. I appreciate the insight on LDS political activism from Johnpacklambert. Although those observations do not belong in the article, they are useful here. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:02, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The coverage in popular and academic sources is more than sufficient to pass WP:BASIC, and could certainly form the basis of a more thorough article on the subject. Bakazaka (talk) 16:43, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- The present article portrays him only as a failed political candidate (which is classically NN). If we are to keep the article (according to emerging consensus), the article needs to be amended to reflect what people have found. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:08, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Agree – the article presents no notability. Redditaddict69 ^(talk) ^(contribs) 20:05, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE that although it has been headed "political stances" , the subhead "political activity" was expanded and sourced a week or so ago with material about Ziser's statewide campaigns, the one that succeed in getting a constitutional amendment on "Protection of Marriage", and ones that failed to pass other similar measures.E.M.Gregory (talk) 09:31, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The decision to keep an article or not is not based on the content of the article, but the available content that could be added to the article. If reliable, especially scholarly, published sources exist that cover the topic of the article of course we want to have it remain. Deletion is not for cleanup, but we clearly do not delete articles just because they do not currently establish notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:29, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Reply – Could we do WP:TNT? Redditaddict69 ^(talk) ^(contribs) 22:47, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redditaddict69, while we are always happy to welcome new and enthusiastic editors. It is important that you slow down long enough to validate the assertions you make. In this case, you, and Peterkringiron, made assertions without reading material that had been added to the page.E.M.Gregory (talk) 09:31, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I still don't see everything about him added. I have read and reread the page and don't see every demonstration of notability that users have mentioned as a reason to keep the article. Currently, this is just a bunch of bulleted notes in a semi-unorganized manner. Redditaddict69 ^(talk) ^(contribs) 09:56, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WP:N: "Notability is based on the existence of suitable sources, not on the state of sourcing in an article." Bakazaka (talk) 18:48, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And where is notability demonstrated? Redditaddict69 ^(talk) ^(contribs) 21:16, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion has already identified several sources contributing to notability, and a search in ProQuest reveals many more, dozens of which predate the run for office. Those are suitable sources, and they exist. As pointed out above, according to WP:N they do not have to be in the article currently. Also worth noting is WP:SOURCEACCESS, part of WP:V, which says "Do not reject reliable sources just because they are difficult or costly to access." WP:GNG is satisfied. Bakazaka (talk) 21:41, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Deletion is not cleanup. The in-line sourcing is solid. But this is an old page with a list of bullet point articles appended. Someone could use them to improve the article.E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:22, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And if nobody fixes this article, then it's still not a good article. If we Blow up + start over, it'll have a clean slate and as a result, flow better and look better. This has been AfDed for weeks now and only citation improvements have been added, not structural. Redditaddict69 ^(talk) ^(contribs) 12:34, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Does this article/subject pass WP:GNG? I nominated this AfD because of that policy. I see very few sources about him. Redditaddict69 ^(talk) ^(contribs) 09:58, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BLUDGEON.E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:22, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't BludgeOn. It's redirecting the content towards the nomination issue. Other arguments are Straw Man because I never mentioned them. if no discussion on nomination, then the close result won't be accurate. Redditaddict69 ^(talk) ^(contribs) 12:31, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note that this is an article about a political activist who headed up a statewide campaign to pass a controversial constitutional amendment almost 20 years ago. As I often do, I used a Proquest News Archive search to check notability when I first came upon this at AfD. It is paywalled. I do not know how to get around the problem that editors blessed with the ability to cross pricey paywalls can find sources that many editors cannot find. I run into this frequently at AfD. Zizer is also validated by INDEPTH in a book that I added to the page. But in many cases, paywalled archive searches are our best safeguard against our endemic WP:PRESENTISM bias.E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:22, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - he comes from a politically involved family, but who doesn't? He ran and lost once. Bearian (talk) 00:28, 11 September 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.