Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thomas Lopez-Pierre

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. Sarahj2107 (talk) 18:09, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Lopez-Pierre

[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 political candidate. That's it. Calton | Talk 07:07, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Nat965 (talk) 07:51, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 12:02, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A failed political candidate who passes GNG can be notable. The coverage cited in the article relates more to his anti-semitic comments and a domestic violence incident than to his actual candicacy. As well, the coverage includes The Washington Times, Daily Mail Online (a British site), and the Times of Israel. So he is an unsuccessful political candidate with particularly unpleasant views, and he has international coverage, something that most candidates for city council lack. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 12:16, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speculation about whether a failed political candidate can pass GNG fails when the failed political candidate does not, in fact, pass GNG. This is supposed to be a biography, not a documentation of a
brief spurt of coverage regarding stupid comments said failed political candidate made. Ref-bombing this non-biography doesn't magically make it GNG-compliant. --Calton | Talk 13:14, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete I'm inclined to argue that this individual fails
WP:BLPCRIME. --HunterM267 ^talk 17:17, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep Subject has enough sources to be notable for a stub article. I'm the creator of this article. Article admittedly does need expanding. Neptune's Trident (talk) 22:59, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Subject has enough sources to be notable for a stub article. Perhaps you could have proved that by actually putting them in. Perhaps you could prove it now? Perhaps you could provide reliable sources for a BIOGRAPHY and not just a single event? --Calton | Talk 00:27, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you could stop Wikipedia:Talk page stalker/Wikistalking me and following me around Wikipedia? Neptune's Trident (talk) 01:15, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you could stop churning out lazy, content-free stubs of dubious notability that keep cropping up on my radar? And where are those "enough sources" you claim exist? --Calton | Talk 06:38, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you should try actually ADDING CONTENT TO WIKIPEDIA instead of being a lazy, content-free deletionist with nothing better to do than add negativity and Wikistalk other users because you've nothing better to do? Neptune's Trident (talk) 14:55, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you should try actually ADDING CONTENT TO WIKIPEDIA
You first. I mean, instead of supplying empty claims of notability. Still waiting for those reliable sources for a BIOGRAPHY and not just a single event, by the way. --Calton | Talk 03:53, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this page is wholly negative BLP article that only has one section Controversy. The article creator has not even bothered to add the minimum information that is needed for a BLP article notably
WP:WIKIHOUNDING and should be reminded that as per this page Correct use of an editor's history includes (but is not limited to) fixing unambiguous errors or violations of Wikipedia policy, or correcting related problems on multiple articles.. Dom from Paris (talk) 13:30, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Thanks, Dom from Paris.
WP:WIKIHOUNDING is the proper term. Neptune's Trident (talk) 14:59, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Actually, it isn't the proper term here. "Deflection" would be more accurate. --Calton | Talk 03:43, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Actually the perfect term(s) is
WP:WIKIHOUNDING. Doubtlessly a certain editor will be doing just that as they have been already and will continue to do so. So it's good that other editors know about it. Neptune's Trident (talk) 16:05, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Your persecution complex is not my problem. Your churning out lazy, content-free stubs of dubious notability that keep cropping up on my radar does appear to be a problem for Wikipedia. Maybe someone SHOULD audit your contributions, because I'm see a trend here. --Calton | Talk 03:53, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. People do not get Wikipedia articles just for being unsuccessful city council candidates — but since local media are expected to cover city council elections as a core part of their job description, every city council candidate would always be able to show some evidence of campaign-related coverage. So the existence of some campaign-related coverage is not enough in and of itself to exempt a candidate from having to clear
WP:NPOL, because every candidate would always have enough coverage to get that exemption, and thus completely deprecate NPOL from ever being relevant at all anymore, if it were. This is not enough coverage to demonstrate that his candidacy was somehow a special case over and above everybody else's candidacy. Bearcat (talk) 17:58, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete being a controversial unsuccessful candidate and generating routine headlines for your bad behaviour isn't enough to pass
WP:GNG. Also agree with Dom from Paris' assessment. SportingFlyer talk 08:01, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete Fails
WP:GNG. \\\Septrillion:- ~~‭~~10^Eleventeen 08:04, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete since the coverage was all in relation to the council election in which he was trounced, this does not add to passing GNG. The notiont that Lopez-Pierre somehow passes GNG is based on misunderstandings of what level of coverage is expected of political candidates, and what level needs to be present to overcome their essentially non-notable nature.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:45, 8 July 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.