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. Consensus is clearly that Michael Moates is not (yet) the subject of significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. In addition, this article is in part a recreation of an article previously deleted at the previous AfD. I've temporarily salted the title to prevent rapid re-re-creation. -- Euryalus (talk) 02:55, 20 December 2017 (UTC) Euryalus (talk) 02:55, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Moates[edit]

Michael Moates (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

Nominating on behalf of an IP user, who presented the following reasoning Beeblebrox (talk) 23:15, 12 December 2017 (UTC):[reply]

This article has been created and deleted twice before already; it's back up for a third time, yet still does not contain anything of notability that justifies its creation. Just as with the first two times, it reeks of WP:PROMO, among many other things. 104.52.53.152 (talk) 23:06, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:20, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:20, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:21, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete -- Ugh. First you have to read through a score of references to find out who he really works for. Then the references list has to be pared for all the self-referential entries. Then you have to search the White House Correspondent's Association website to discover whether he's been thrown out yet. The result will be the outing of a crank. Then disassembly of the walled garden. Rhadow (talk) 01:06, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please note the difference between the White House press corps and the White House Correspondents Association which are two seperate intenties. One is run by the United States Government and one is a non-profit organization. Jamesharrison2014 (talk) 07:58, 13 December 2017 (UTC) — Note to closing admin: jamesharrison2014 (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD. [reply]

• Weak Delete- I guess the question that has to be answered is, does membership in the White House Press Corps give a person notability? Based on the fact that we don't have articles for a lot of the members, I guess the answer is no. His White House Press Corps membership would be the only possible claim of notability that I see.--Rusf10 (talk) 01:22, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Rusf10 -- On July 21, 2017, Moates was sitting in the sixth row of the briefing room. He is wearing a lanyard. The folks in the front row aren't, probably because they have hard passes -- biennial passes to enter the White House, and only issued after a similar pass is issued for the press galleries in Congress. More likely Moates had a day pass described here [1]. "Day passes for a trip to the press room require little more effort than submitting some personal information to the White House."

I wrongly assumed that this page was accurate White House press corps. A closer look reveals the source for Michael Moates is this: [2].--Rusf10 (talk) 02:43, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The page is accurate. Some choose to take off their badges during the briefings but can be seen wearing them.

https://s-i.huffpost.com/gen/2865754/images/o-OBAMA-PRESS-CORPS-facebook.jpg https://img.huffingtonpost.com/asset/589b9d562900002200f2541c.jpeg?ops=scalefit_720_noupscale Jamesharrison2014 (talk) 08:57, 13 December 2017 (UTC) — Note to closing admin: jamesharrison2014 (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD. [reply]

• Keep- Moates is a regular correspondent. He can be seen in multiple briefings. Notability is dicribed as having mutiple sources showing "significant coverage" per wikipedia:notability these sources include The White House, ABC, NBC, Fox, etc... constant coverage of the White House from inside the press corps. Futhermore wikipedia:notability says if you have a notability problem to place the notability tag. ((notability)) This article is far from completed and sources are still being added.

Jamesharrison2014 (talk) 07:48, 13 December 2017 (UTC)— Note to closing admin: jamesharrison2014 (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD. [reply]

A person gets a Wikipedia article by being the subject of coverage about him, not by simply being seen at briefings. Bearcat (talk) 21:52, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - The subject here is notability. Does regular reporting of the White House constitute notability. After doing some research I learned not only does he attend the briefings but he is in constant communication with the former and current White House press secretaries.

See links - https://www.facebook.com/michaelsmoates/photos/a.1955931344634780.1073741828.1945837408977507/2049779095250004/?type=3&theater https://www.facebook.com/realmichaelmoates/posts/952450918237484 https://www.facebook.com/realmichaelmoates/posts/946530845496158

He also meets the notability requirements for Facebook verification. Link - https://www.facebook.com/michaelsmoates/

2600:1700:70E0:3EE0:C539:469B:E2F7:5A07 (talk) 08:21, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment -- Moates is very clever. If he chooses a career in politics, he will go far. He has identified a collection of data sources to seed with weak facts, then harvest proof of the notability of his organization. Above, there is an assertion that Facebook verification is somehow indicative of notability. The IRS recognized non-profit status for The Narrative News, Inc. in September 2017. The organization signed up for GuideStar Platinum status, allowing it use the GuideStar badge. Never mind that the organization has never filed an annual return with the IRS. There is no way to independently confirm that the organization has ever generated any revenue, charitable or not. Similarly, Moates claims to be a "regular" member of the White House Press Corps. He can be clearly identified in at least one video. Regular is hard to define. It is possible that he holds a hard pass to the White House, but it's more likely he applied for, and received, day passes. On the basis of a visit or two (remember, he is a putative full-time university student), an assertion is made in White House press corps that he is a regular member. The reference was not independent. Then his own website harvests an image of the WP article and posts it to demonstrate credibility. That is using WP to promote one's own cause. It is all the truth, and nothing but the truth. But every piece is just barely the truth. The result is a Potemkin Village.

Genius! A photo of three people had a descriptive title attached when it was posted to wikimedia commons, "File:Michael Moates Half-time Interview with Taya Kyle and Huffington Post Photojournalist Daishia Pratt.png." A photo proves Moates was with Kyle and Pratt. It proves nothing about the conduct of an interview. The result, though, is that Google prefills the search bar with "Michael Moates Huffingon Post".

• Comment It is worth noting that 2600:1700:70E0:3EE0:C539:469B:E2F7:5A07 (talk · contribs) posted writhing minutes of jamesharrison2014 (talk · contribs) and that the IP geolocates to Ft Worth, near where Moates is said to live. I hear a quacking sound. Billhpike (talk) 22:11, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Scratch the surface and you'll discover it's WP:TOOSOON for Moates and Nation One News Foundation. He's not so much a regular WH reporter as an occasional visitor. Its not so much a foundation as a group with an approved application. If one were to ask the hard questions, like,. "How many WH press briefings did you attend in 2017?", or "How much revenue has The Narrative News Inc generated this year?", the story would be much less compelling. Strip away the Facebook references and the sources written by Moates and there's not much left. Rhadow (talk) 13:47, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Doesn't meet WP:ANYBIO because he has not received in-depth coverage in reliable sources (somebody's blog or Facebook is not a reliable source; tabloid newspapers or online publications with similar standards of fact checking are not reliable sources). Being a journalist doesn't guarantee notability - this is proven by many precedents and implied by WP:JOURNALIST. The article has lots of references but most are one-line mentions at best. What the references prove is that he's less famous than some woman who pissed on a flag, and she's not notable either. --Colapeninsula (talk) 14:27, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete As per all the above delete votes. In addition, it doesn't meet WP:NPOL, the article claims he's a candidate for Congress but I see no sign that he is running a bona fide campaign (and he's not age-eligible in 2018). power~enwiki (π, ν) 16:38, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Repeatedly-created article, where the sources do not cover this individual in any depth whatsoever, there are brief mentions in unreliable/fringe sources only. Once this closes as a likely delete, I'd like to draw participants' attention to the White House press corps article where the article creator and a friend tag-team edit-warred to include Moates and his organization into the listing, which IMO is unwarranted to to both subject and organization's non-notability. ValarianB (talk) 18:03, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Contrary to one of the arguments above, this subject does not have "significant coverage" of/about themselves in reliable resources. Citing blogs and someones Twitter feed do not make up for it. Seems to be self promotion. -Indy beetle (talk) 20:34, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - Request administrator not delete but put back in draft so the article can continue to be improved. Jamesharrison2014 (talk) 05:56, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• I oppose moving to draftspace and I doubt an admin will do such. This article has been deleted twice once before. The reasons for this have been spelled out. He's not notable. It's not a matter of prose quality we're debating. Articles can't be rewritten so that their subjects are suddenly notable. If the sources are not out there (and it really doesn't look like it now) than we cannot have an article about him. -Indy beetle (talk) 06:11, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• I believe there are significant other sources out there and the article can be improved. Allowing me the oppertunity to work on it would be the best course of action.Jamesharrison2014 (talk) 06:25, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• @Jamesharrison2014: If the other sources can be found than by all means show them to us. But insofar there is no proof of notability. The draftspace cannot just be a repository of bios of some people who might be notable one day. If that were the case, I could cite a few documents/sources with my name on them and then retain a bio in draftspace indefinitely while I conduct a hypothetical fact-finding mission. You must show that these sources exist or we simply have to conclude that Moates is not notable. -Indy beetle (talk) 06:35, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete and "don't move to draft space" Because of serious problem of coordinated promotion against Wikipedia policy. I highlighted this at the Organization's AfD and it is still relevant here.

• The only pages edited by Jamesharrison2014 (talk · contribs) are four and exhibited behavior incompatible with Wikipedia policies. Some highlights:
• He created Michael Moates, the director of the organization.
• He created the organizations article Nation One News Foundation earlier.
• He then edit-warred at White House press corps to insert the director.
• He then asked for the page to be fully protected so as to save their preferred version.
• His self-serving request was declined.
• He reverted the Admin who declined the request.
• He continued edit-warring at Talk:White House press corps after your declined request.
• He made another request at RFPP to protect your own version.
• His behavior suggest totally he is here to advertise and advocate for Michael Moates and his organization. But I told him he can change. He can become WP:HERE and help build an encyclopedia. But all these promotional pages will be deleted, we don't move spams fo draft. –Ammarpad (talk) 07:36, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Also of note, I had to file an anti-harassment report at the ANI board, as Jamesharrison2014 continues to revert a warning template on my talk page, for days on end. ValarianB (talk) 12:53, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete with WP:SALT. This article is not showing that Moates has been the subject of enough reliable source coverage to pass WP:GNG — this is based entirely on primary source (e.g. his own contributor profiles on websites he's directly affiliated with), YouTube clips, glancing namechecks of his existence in coverage of someone or something other than him, and sources which are entirely tangential to him because they entirely fail to even mention his name at all. This is not how you demonstrate a person as notable enough for a Wikipedia article. Bearcat (talk) 21:51, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Lack of reliable sources independent of the subject.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 14:14, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete No main stream media sourcing and extremely limited in depth coverage. Billhpike (talk) 20:07, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also WP:SALT to prevent continued disruption. Billhpike (talk) 21:55, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, lacks in-depth coverage in reliable secondary sources. Citobun (talk) 14:02, 19 December 2017 (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.