Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lamont Lilly

Add links
Source: 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 no consensus. After extended time for discussion, there is no consensus to delete this article, and a reasonable argument that the article subject is notable based on sufficient discussion of the subject in sources independent of the subject. I note that there is one participant in the discussion who appears to have arisen as an SPA to this topic (their own protestations notwithstanding), and two other editors who have relatively little overall participation in Wikipedia, but does appear to have worked on a number of articles unrelated to the subject of discussion, and for a longer time than would be typical of an SPA. I do not find either of these to particularly match the descriptor of a "dormant account". BD2412 T 06:28, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lamont Lilly

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

Lamont Lilly (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)

Alleged to be A7 article, but there is enough coverage in past version to imply a degree of notability. Listing for community input. TomStar81 (Talk) 00:06, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: I don’t know what an A7 article is. Zoe1013 (talk) 01:33, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • @
    t • c) 02:53, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Note: Above editor has exclusively contributed to this article and some related talk pages.
    t • c) 02:53, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Reliable sources covering a subject is the standard. The scope and reach of the source is not relevant, at least as far as our notability guidelines go.--User:Namiba 14:19, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
On the contrary, I think standard practice is that local news sources are not the same as regional/national sources. This is why we do not encourage people to write articles about every town councilmen or commissioner, despite there likely being lots of reliable source coverage about those people. -Indy beetle (talk) 19:56, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If you can point to where it states that, I would appreciate it. I do not see it in
WP:N. In fact, it suggests otherwise "Availability of secondary sources covering the subject is a good test for notability." Anyway, Lilly was the vice-presidential nominee of a national political party and was interviewed in a variety of sources so this argument is irrelevant.--User:Namiba 15:28, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply
]
@
WP:POLITICIAN, "Just being an elected local official, or an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability" so that's just flat out wrong. One of the notes in that policy says "A politician who has received "significant press coverage" has been written about, in depth, independently in multiple news feature articles, by journalists." The only feature articles I've seen on Lilly are from Indy Week and The Roanoke Tribune. -Indy beetle (talk) 16:48, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply
]
I didn't argue that he was guaranteed notability because he was a vice-presidential candidate; I said that he is the subject of a number of in-depth independent articles, which you concede in your previous statement. I am glad that we seem to agree that there are multiple, in-depth sources covering him in detail. That's the standard for notability at
WP:GNG.--User:Namiba 16:59, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply
]
@Namiba: A mere two sources. -Indy beetle (talk) 19:57, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There are 2 very good sources, multiple interviews, and many more which briefly mention or describe Lilly's activism. There are 54 references on the article itself so forgive me if I am unconvinced by your minimization.--User:Namiba 20:12, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Indy beetle: I do not have a conflict of interest, I am just familiar with this person's activism. Each citation is credible in that it confirms either his involvement at the demonstrations listed and/or the subject's political stances, which is relevant to an article about an activist/political figure. I do not know why this article is still being considered for deletion and is still receiving so much editing, particularly from Indy beetle. It meets every requirement for notability and source trustworthiness. -Tarcanes
I've been busy cleaning up things that have been sourced to blogs (which are not "trustworthy") and details which are not backed up by the sources, such as the assertion that he was born in Charlotte (reliable sources say Fayetteville) or the absolutely bogus propaganda line that he "helped encourage a wave of revolutionary activism among oppressed and working-class youth". I'm curious as to how you would know that he organized "Mixed Mic Mondays" when none of the sources you provided supported that or that you know the exact day of his birthday (reliable sources only give the year he was born, not the day). If you are friends with Mr. Lilly you should not be editing this article. -Indy beetle (talk) 01:03, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: I have removed much of the subjective language to prevent this article appearing promotional, keeping it strictly factual and objectively informative. I've also added a significant number of sources, both primary sources where the subject states his presence in the location/event mentioned, or secondary articles confirming the subjects involvement and expounding upon the subject's actions Tarcanes (talk) 05:19, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • @
      WP:COI you should disclose it. -Indy beetle (talk) 19:56, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply
      ]
      • @Tarcanes: "I've made several contributions to multiple articles. Just not on this account." Are you using multiple accounts to edit, or dod you mean that you've edited while logged out? TomStar81 (Talk) 07:37, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Gabe Iglesia (talk) 12:30, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Gabe Iglesia (talk) 12:30, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Gabe Iglesia (talk) 12:30, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. Gabe Iglesia (talk) 12:30, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,

talk) 14:10, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

The article shows that he has been published widely, he was the vice-presidential nominee of a nationally-organized political party and there are multiple independent sources which cover him in detail. That many of those sources come from one region is irrelevant. This seems like a "I don't like it" argument or a "I am going to create my own standard for deletion" argument than one based on policy.--User:Namiba 12:52, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ah yes,
WP:JUSTNOTNOTABLE, the only two arguments I know how to make .[sarcasm
]
The fact that they are from one region is incredibly relevant to their notability. A profile in The New York Times or The Wall Street Journal is generally more indicative of notability than a profile in The Smalltown Tribune. I would direct you towards Indy beetle's argument above, but it's clear you have already discounted his points. The fact of the matter is that small and local publications by-and-large write about small and local news, and small and local news is not what Wikipedia should include. This is not to say that they aren't reliable, just that they don't indicate notability. If we used your standard to establish notability, we would have articles on every high school student who joined the thousand point club, on every school superintendent who had improper relations with somebody, on every local businessman who defrauded people, on every local activist who hasn't gotten all that much attention, because that's what local publications write about. While he is (presumably) not a corporation,
WP:AUD is in some ways a good rule of thumb for people too. It's generally been my experience that this is the case, particularly for political figures. I point you towards numerous extensive discussions on the topic, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8. It's a controversial topic that there isn't agreement upon-- We just appear to be on different sides of the debate. And That Is Just Fine. Best, Eddie891 Talk Work 13:35, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply
]
A candidate for vice-president of the United States is not a local activist. One quoted and publishing in national and internationally trusted sources isn't equivalent to a high school student. It's a nice strawman you've built but it's definitely not comparable. It's fine to disagree but let's not disregard the facts.--User:Namiba 13:39, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
A candidate can be notable, but when they get 4,173 votes out of over 136 million cast and their name and party aren't even mentioned on the 2016 United States presidential election, it's clear that it doesn't indicate notability. Their ticket statistically got 0.00% of the vote. Deez Nuts, a high school student, was polling higher. Best, Eddie891 Talk Work 13:58, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That's beside the point. You argued that because the most in-depth coverage of Lilly is from a regional newspaper, he isn't notable despite passing
WP:GNG. I pointed out that he received coverage (including a full-length interview from The North Star) as part of his campaign for vice-president. How many votes he received is inconsequential, as your comment about another candidate. Again, facts, not your opinion or bias, matter.--User:Namiba 14:08, 11 September 2020 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Lamont_Lilly&oldid=1069002713"