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 redirect to Texas secession movements#Texas Nationalist Movement. After discounting the WP:SPAs and the people apparently canvassed to this discussion, there are very few (experienced) Wikipedia editors who believe that this political activist is notable as per our criteria at WP:GNG, despite this discussion itself receiving local media coverage. But as has been pointed out redirecting the name to the article where his group is covered is a reasonable WP:ATD. Sandstein 12:48, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Miller (politician)[edit]

Daniel Miller (politician) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

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

Political candidate running in primary of 2022 Texas lieutenant gubernatorial election, no real notability outside of announcing as candidate. Mvqr (talk) 11:51, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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)).

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:07, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:07, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:07, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Miller is notable, look up "Daniel Miller Texas" in Google News. Multiple wikipedia pages already mentioned him. He has been on national news https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=UpWvBLCj-W0. He is a published author. You can find many news articles about him. And, of course, he is running for a state-wide office. And, I mean, all there needs to be to exceed the notability threshold is having multiple sources which are not from the subject. He well passes this bar. Js22003 (talk) 12:04, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. Here are five articles which he is a significant subject in that were published before he announced his candidacy, for ease 1 2 3 4 5 Js22003 (talk) 12:35, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete only notable as a candidate. I don't think the above articles convey any sort of lasting notability. We can include information about him on the election page, as is traditionally done. SportingFlyer T·C 12:49, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• It doesn't matter if his coverage won't last, as notability is not temporary. Also, he already has had coverage over a significant amount of time. Here are articles from 2012, 2013, 2014, and 2015. And anyway, he already meets the GNG. Plenty of significant coverage in articles, even if he isn't the main subject of all of them, he is mentioned in a more-than-trivial manner. The previous nine articles I've provided in this discussion all meet the Reliable criteria. They are all secondary. They aren't associated with him or his group. As I understand them, this article isn't what Wikipedia is not. The presumption that this article's subject is notable is as sure as almost every other subject on Wikipedia; Miller's coverage meets every criteria in the Notability guideline, and none of the criterias in what Wikipedia is not. Js22003 (talk) 14:27, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  That coverage is on the Texas Nationalist Movement and not so much about Miller as an individual.--Mvqr (talk) 15:09, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Non-elected politician; as above, only notable as a candidate. --Whiteguru (talk) 21:28, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Texas secession movements#Texas Nationalist Movement, not independently notable per WP:NPOL or as a leader of a political movement. It is possible that this movement could be eligible for a standalone article, but that is outside the scope of this discussion and would happen later. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 04:08, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Js22003 (talk) 07:34, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Daniel Miller is important enough to have a Wikipedia page base solely off of his 25 years of service in working to secure and protect the political, cultural and economic independence of Texas. All a person needs to do is make their way through the pages of https://tnm.me to see this. Daniel Miller has at least two books, one being on the best seller, he has also had countless appearances on every major as well as some minor news media outlets ranging in the thousands. He also has a Texas Music radio station.TexasGiGi (talk) 06:18, 19 December 2021 (UTC) — TexasGiGi (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
• Keep Operating the third largest political organizationd in one of the largest states in the Union has garnered him much notoriety among people all across this country. The TNM will continue long after he is gone and so will his legacy as founder. His best selling book, TEXIT, is widely considered to be the "Bible" for Independence Movements not just in Texas but around the globe. This alone ensures he will be notable for decades to come. If he were to withdraw as a political candidate tomorrow he would still be eligible based solely on the massive number of magazine and newspaper articles and tv appearances on major networks over his lifetime. TexasQueenbee (talk) 12:56, 19 December 2021 (UTC) — TexasQueenbee (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
• Keep Daniel Miller is a notable author of two successful books, "Line In The Sand" (2011) and "TEXIT: Why and How Texas Will Leave the Union" (2018). Mr. Miller has been interviewed by countless news sources and television programs on Fox News, Newsmax, WBAP 820, CNN, CNBC, BBC News, Real American News as well as countless podcasts. For 25 plus years has served as the president of the Texas Nationalist Movement, www,tnm.me that boasts over 426,171 Texas supporters. Mr. Miller has been a go to source for all things related to Texas sovereignty and the push for TEXIT independence. Mr. Miller is more than just someone running for office and not just any office, the Lieutenant Governor of Texas. Chris Milton74 (talk) 02:41, 20 December 2021 (UTC) — Chris Milton74 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
• Comment. The closing admin will undoubtedly note the SPAs !voting here. They are noted as such. A reminder to all that AFD is not a vote. --Kinu ^t/_c 04:27, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Non-notable per WP:NPOL and no indication of sourcing that suggests notability outside of involvement in Texas Nationalist Movement, so a redirect there is not unreasonable but not necessary, per se. No prejudice to recreation if the candidacy gains traction and merits an article per WP:BLP (e.g., if but not necessarily if he wins the primary). --Kinu ^t/_c 04:30, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment He meets the NPOL because he is running for office and meets the GNG. All the people for deletion so far are assuming that his notability relies on the SNG for politicians, but he wouldn't even needed to have run for office to be notable, as he fits the GNG. It doesn't matter is he is non-notable under the NPOL SNG, as he is notable under the GNG. Maybe the page name should be renamed "Daniel Miller (political activist)". Being honest, I didn't put hours of thought into the name of the article at the time, but I didn't know his notability would hang on it. Also, Daniel Miller is, I would argue, similar, but more notable than Spike Cohen (who has a Wiki article). They are both candidates for the second highest executive office, and are in radio. But, Miller is also a published author. There are tons of Daniel Millers, so I needed to put something. There's even another "Dan Miller (Florida politician)". So, maybe (activist) or his middle initial could be added to the page, but satisfying NPOL beyond running is not necessary because he does fulfill the GNG (and this is writen under the first two points of the NPOL). I think I should remind all future participants in this discussion the spirit of the Notability rule. First, it prevents nobodies from creating their own articles (why you or I can't write our own articles). Second, it ensures that there is enough reliable, secondary information to create an objective article. Clearly, there is more than enough of that, provided in this discussion and in the references on the main article. And, I mean, look at how large the article is after just a few days. In short, the NPOL is satisfied because the GNG is satisfied. No one has provided evidence to the contrary; of the GNG not being satisfied. Notability guidelines are supposed to ensure articles can be of high quality while being adequately sourced, and this is the undeniably the case for this Daniel Miller article. Js22003 (talk) 06:46, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Striking keep, you already voted up top.--Mvqr (talk) 13:28, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Removed keep. Sorry, meant it to clarify that my comment didn't mean I changed my opinion from keep to move, or some other alternative, as I did introduce the possibility of changing the name of the article as another possible remediation in the comment. Js22003 (talk) 15:10, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

*Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Libertarianism-related deletion discussions. Js22003 (talk) 07:04, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Media Coverage on this Issue I just found out that the article's nomination as an AfD, and this discussion itself, has had a news piece written about it (the news piece). Both my and SportingTiger's comments were quoted on this article. This AfD discussion has been publicized about. I don't think this happens very often, so I just wanted to let future Wikipedians and the Closing Admin know that this discussion may be 'unusually non-academic'. And, I know it may be unconventional, but that even the potential deletion of Miller's Wiki article gets press coverage; I think just gives more credence to the claim that he is notable. I mean, when the thousands of non-notable vandals a day add their own name and articles about themselves to Wikipedia, and are summarily reverted, they don't get any press coverage. Although, this shouldn't really be considered real evidence, as it is so unconventional, just something to think about. Also, I just thought it was cool that I was technically quoted in the press. Hi, mom! Js22003 (talk) 15:50, 20 December 2021 (UTC) P.S., if someone knows the standard word or phrase to bold at the beginning of this entry, can you add the current one, or maybe suggest it? I've never encountered this on an AfD before.[reply]

  The media coverage, a brief Dallas Observer piece, is is on David Miller himself issuing a statement labelling Wikipedia as a "cancel-culture co-conspirator" on the 17th of December shortly after this article was nominated for deletion. Miller's statement is so outlandish, including labelling those who want to delete his article as the "mini-Stalins of the world", that the outlandish statement of this candidate got brief coverage.--Mvqr (talk) 16:29, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Oh, didn't find that article before as it doesn't come up on Google News. Still, could lead to a hostile and non-academic discussion, or an edit war between 'Millerers' and 'Observerers' in the main article. I actually recently reverted what seemed very much like an attempt at adding a post on here (it was even signed) erroneously added to the main article. And I still technically got quoted in the press. Look, no hands! Js22003 (talk) 16:52, 20 December 2021 (UTC) P.S., Is there like a WP: or essay or something detailing what to do if a discussion has been publicized about? I've never encountered this.[reply]

• Keep Daniel Miller is a notable figure in Texas politics. He has been involved in grassroots movements for several decades. I have discovered that people are familiar with his work if they are engaged in Texas politics. However, this does not mean that his influence is confined within his home state. As I have personally seen Daniel Miller featured on national and Texas-wide media dozens of times. Respectfully, there is no objective reason to delete this page. Mandp112 (talk) 23:29, 20 December 2021 (UTC) — Mandp112 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
• Redirect to 2022 Texas lieutenant gubernatorial election. Does not meet WP:NPOL at this time. KidAd • SPEAK 00:13, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Non-notable as he was never elected, and was only a candidate. I agree with other editors that the appropriate place for information about him would be in election articles. Ben ❯❯❯ Talk
• Delete Fails WP:NPOL and the level of coverage outside his campaign does not amount to a WP:GNG pass. Best, GPL93 (talk) 20:45, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Meets WP:BIO with sources presented by JS. They're reliable enough IMV. SBKSPP (talk) 00:51, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep There are problems with the page, and Miller does not pass WP:NPOL. However, this is an easy pass of WP:GNG. Courthouse News centers its article about the subject. The Dallas Observer describes him as a founder of the independence movement. The New York Times describes a meeting Miller had with Texas' Lt. Governor. The first two articles I mention are quite substantive, and the third shows national attention to both the movement and the subject specifically. All of these articles predate the subject's candidacy. There is a lot of material that should be trimmed from the article in keeping with WP:DUE, but that is a discussion that should occur on the talk page. --Enos733 (talk) 06:41, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Daniel Miller is the President of the Texas Nationalist Movement, he has worked for Texas Independence for 25 years, he is the author of 2 books (Line in the sand) and TEXIT: Why and How Texas Will Leave The Union, he is the co-owner and operates Radio Free Texas, he has been interviewed by numerous sources including tv, radio, print and social media, he was a pen pal of American astronaut, marine and senator John Glenn. He is running for Republican primary for the 2022 Texas Lt. Governor. Ken42555! (talk) 22:52, 22 December 2021 (UTC) — Ken42555! (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
• Keep Daniel Miller is President of the Texas Nationalist Movement for over 25 years and owner of a radio free station and author of two books ( Texit and Line in the sand ). He is now running in the Republican Primary for Lt. Governor He has also made numerous talk show program on national television(User talk:jay.vandiver)Jay.vandiver (talk) 04:14, 23 December 2021 (UTC) — Jay.vandiver (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I smell some canvassing in this discussion. After discarding the votes from SPAs that are not policy-based, there's no clear consensus on whether to keep, delete or redirect the article.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 12:00, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Texas secession movements#Texas Nationalist Movement. It's not implausible that someone would want to look him up, but we don't really have a case for independent wiki-notability. Describing the person separately from the organization is sometimes a distraction, and I think this is one of those times. XOR'easter (talk) 23:57, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Not a lot of reliable sources are cited. More SIGCOV is needed from reliable sources for the page to remain in the articlespace. If there are any additional reliable sources, they should be added. Multi7001 (talk) 02:52, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Move to "Daniel Miller (political activist)". I agree that, if you only took into account his political career, he would not be notable. He does not fit the two points in WP:NPOL, and the caveat below the points, which reads, "Just being an... unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability, although such people can still be notable if they meet the general notability guideline." does not guarantee qualification of notability, but just prevents dis-qualification. And, I must admit that I named the article hastily, and that in hindsight, "politician" may not have been the best descriptor. If all Miller ever did was undertake his campaigns for office, he wouldn't be notable. The articles which do mention his political endeavors; his mayoral, representative, and lt. gubernatorial runs, do not constitute WP:SIGCOV. So, he should not be referred to as a politician in the article's namespace, because, although he is a politician, that is not what makes him notable. An alternative would be moving the article to "Daniel O. Miller", but my opinion is that the 'activist' option would be preferable as there are already multiple 'Daniel (Middle Initial) Miller' articles. But, as just a living person, not a politician, there is, I believe, a sufficient number of news articles and interviews in which he or his actions are the sole focus (coincidently, none are about any of his campaigns for public office, another good reason why he should no longer be referred to as a politician in the article's title). This 2012 Mediaite article reviews an interview he gave on Fox's Hannity about a seccession petition on a White House website. Politico also interviewed him but also went further into detail about reactions to the petition here. In 2016, British publication The Guardian interviewed Miller about the ongoing Brexit vote, the interview also being used for a France 24 article demonstrating "attention by the world at large" per WP:N. After the Brexit vote, Miller's reaction to its result is analysed in The Victoria Advocate. This article discussing the rising popularity of Texas independence from The Epoch Times even includes Miller's name in its headline. The Atlantic published an interview and biographical piece which details events of his early life. Even though not all of these sources are used in the article at this time, they still establish notability as "Notability requires only the existence of suitable independent, reliable sources" per WP:NEXIST. These articles span a time of multiple years, and per WP:SUSTAINED "sustained coverage is an indicator of notability". Per the WP:BASIC, these works together constitute "multiple published secondary sources". Furthermore, these are all "reliable" as they allow for the satisfaction of WP:RS, as they are not all considered to be of the same political affiliation or even based in the same country, and they do not receive significant funding from Miller, and would not clearly benefit from Miller's actions and goals, whether successful or unsuccessful; they have no players in the game. So, I believe Miller fully satisfies WP:BASIC. Under WP:GNG, "A topic is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list when it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Significant coverage is defined as an amount of coverage that "addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content". In the article, all information is cited, and no original research WP:NOP was needed to write it. Because no original research was required, the significant coverage requirement is satisfied. These sources are reliable per WP:SOURCE as they are "respected mainstream publications", "magazines", and "mainstream newspapers". Per WP:SECONDARY, they are secondary because "they rely on primary sources for their material" and for their "analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis of the facts, evidence, concepts, and ideas". All the above sources are independent of the subject per the definition given in the WP:GNG as they are not "produced by the article's subject or someone affiliated with it". In conclusion, as the sources which exist for this topic, in my opinion, satisfy WP:BASIC and WP:GNG, but does not satisfy one of the two points of WP:NPOL, the article should be moved to "Daniel Miller (political activist)". I believe this solution is a good marriage of the evidence provided for both the "Keep" and "Delete" opinions. Js22003 (talk) 09:58, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete besides the weak possibility of notability , the article is highly promotional . That's a good reason to use deletion when notability is borderline DGG ( talk ) 05:40, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect Not notable, per WP:NBIO, for lack of sufficient significant coverage by independent reliable sources; most of the cited sources are to either minor publications or primary sources. We should probably redirect to 2022 Texas lieutenant gubernatorial election; that’s what we usually do with candidates who are not otherwise notable. Alternatively, redirect to Texas Nationalist Movement, but that movement is apparently not notable enough to be an article in itself; it is a section at Texas secession movements. (Considering that it is said to be the third-largest political organization in Texas, someone may want to expand it into a full article, but that’s another issue for another day.) -- MelanieN (talk) 22:33, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Daniel Miller is the most notable proponent of the Texas secession movement today, his name is synonymous with the movement in its current standing. Millions of Texans are aware of Texit because of the decades long work of Mr. Miller. Therefore he should be considered of sufficient notability, perhaps it is more fitting to edit the promotional aspects of the content. -- patrickwynne (talk) 08:43, 29December 2021 (UTC) — patrickwynne (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Redirect to Texas secession movements#Texas Nationalist Movement? Only marginal notability. Anyone else notice the poor quality writing? Moriori (talk) 01:25, 30 December 2021 (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.