Talk:Robert Satiacum Jr.

Notability

A WP:BLP1E that looks less and less notable the further we move past the 2016 Electoral College vote. Plus the fact that he is already listed, sourced, at Faithless electors in the United States presidential election, 2016. Probably best to merge this there.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:40, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Seems quite notable historically, and has the sources. Satiacum gave a presidential electoral vote to the first Native American to receive one, as well as to one of only two women to receive one. The overlap with the South Dakota protest gives his reasoning notability as well. Also fails WP:BLP1E because the event he was involved in was significant. Seems like a keeper. Randy Kryn 16:52, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Strongly agree with Randy Kryn. The overwhelming consensus at the deletion discussion was to keep Satiacum, even if all the others were deleted. MB298 (talk) 00:12, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

The sole notability that I can find is his electoral vote for Faith Spotted Eagle. It is also her sole claim to notability. I think mentioning Satiacum in Faith Spotted Eagle and redirecting his name to Faithless electors in the United States presidential election, 2016 covers what is, after all, a very trivial event.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:44, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

If you look through the deletion discussion, you will see that he is notable not only through is recent electoral vote, but his continued activism and his film role.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 19:19, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

Anyway, BLP1E isn't the issue here, since Satiacum has long been a public figure. The relevant guideline (not policy, which BLP1E is) is WP:BIO1E.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 19:21, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

Agreed. MB298 (talk) 19:21, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

There actually is no issue, as this page was recently up for deletion and wasn't deleted, so we can't "delete" or merge it from here. The movie he made, on the other hand, has one of those quick delete tags on it, hopefully not to boost this discussion one way or another. Randy Kryn 18:04, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

• The "film role" was in a non-notable small indy; the secondary sources (about the film and Mt. Ranier) on the page are local. And Note that the other articles about non-notable people who were faithless electors in 2016 have all been deleted, demonstrating that an article or two about being a faithless elector does not confer enduring notability by WP standards. The previous deletion discussion on Sanitacum closed "no consenses." Unless better sources can be found, a new AfD ought ot be started.E.M.Gregory (talk) 02:00, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

  You just spent time getting the film deleted, and as soon as it is you want to delete this page? He is very notable, and the last deletion attempt was a lump-deletion including him and the other so-called faithless electors. Look at the sources and references for this page, they are wide-reaching and solid. He is notable in many ways, and his political action was widely reported and had the effect of giving an electoral vote for President to a Native American for the first time. We can point a stick at his notability, but not poke a stick through it. Notable in several ways. Randy Kryn 11:15, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

• The film was deleted for dearth of sources supporting notability. This page lacks sources that demonstrate notability. Please add the kind of WP:RS that pass WP:GNG before removing the notability tag form the page.E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:23, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

• Randy Kryn, rather than being deleted, Santiacum's name with sources can be redirected to Faithless electors in the United States presidential election, 2016, as was done with the articles about fellow "faithless electors" Bret Chiafalo, Levi Guerra, Christopher Suprun and Esther John.E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:34, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

• CBS news, the Los Angeles Tribune, here's one from the New York Post if you want to pop it in, the coverage of his historic vote for a Native American for US president is quite extensive. Nobility and his place in history in this case is not because he was a "faithless elector", but because of who he voted for. Randy Kryn 11:42, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

• Each of the 2016 faithless electors got a similar flurry of mentions in the media "because of who 9they) voted for." And all of them have been redirected except this one. Being an elector is not, in itself, a claim to notability. it is like being a candidate for office, candidates can generate substantive coverage during a campaign, but (except for major offices) they fail WP:POLITICIAN unless elected, despite the porfiles published during the campaign. The fact that he voted for Winona LaDuke is already mentioned on her page, whjich seems more than sufficient. Unless you thin that this should be redirected there, rather than to the Faithless Elector 2016 page.E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:42, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

• Your point 'they all got redirected except this one' is because this page survived the deletion, and was kept. Satiacum is notable for more than just his electoral vote, but combined with his other accomplishments and cited activities the electoral vote cements his notability. As mentioned, the film in which he starred was one of those notable features, and was deleted despite winning two awards and other factors, but it still exists as part of Satiacum's notability. His tribal actions alone make him notable. This is a well-sourced and cited page, and the notability tag should be removed. Randy Kryn 13:12, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
• They all "survived the deletion", each was then individually taken to AfD and deleted. The tag is there because sources, which are not any stronger that those at other electors such as Christopher Suprun, are insufficient to support notability. Randy Kryn, the way to keep a page like this up, is to bring sources demonstrating notabilty. Arguments like those you made at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rain in the Mountains do not establish notability; adequate sources are needed.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:53, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

• This page has adequate sources. There is no problem here. Please remove the incorrect notability tag. Randy Kryn 14:16, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

I think discussion at this page is at an impasse. E.M.Gregory, I think you'd better nominate at AfD and hash it out there. --Trovatore (talk) 01:42, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

The film wasn't notable because there was only one source talking about it. There are multiple mentions of Satiacum Jr. for different things in different reliable sources, and much of that coverage is significant. The most of the other electors were re-nominated for deletion individually, but Satiacum was not, for this reason. If you look at the actual arguments in the AfD, there was a consensus to Keep Satiacum, due to discussions of him in reliable sources prior the 2016 election.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 04:20, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Arguably, but it wasn't recorded as such by the closer. An AfD for Satiacum alone should clarify the issue one way or the other (even a "no consensus" should make the problem go away for six months or so, and strengthen the argument for removing the tag). --Trovatore (talk) 04:43, 1 May 2017 (UTC)