- 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 keep and improve. Rough consensus that the subject is notable, but as a WP:BLP needs serious editorial attention. ansh 666 09:27, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
Ed Buck
- Ed Buck ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
WP:BLP of a political activist and non-winning city council candidate, with no strong claim of notability per WP:NPOL and not enough reliable sourcing to get him past WP:GNG in lieu. Of the five sources here, one is a hyperlocal community blog, which is not a notability-assisting source at all; one is a piece of purely local coverage in the context of his private personal life, supporting content that's extremely sensitive and thus belongs nowhere near a Wikipedia article without spectacularly airtight mega-sourcing for it; and all of the other three are just supporting that he was involved with a campaign to impeach an officeholder, without supporting any indication that he was central enough to that campaign to require a standalone biography for it. It would need significantly more substance and significantly more sourcing about his specific role in the impeachment campaign before we could consider him notable for that. Bearcat ( talk) 21:57, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
- I've rephrased it. The article says, ""Recall drive. Bucking the system: unlikely figure leads challenge to Mecham"". Yes, he was central and already a "household name" in the 1980s. Zigzig20s ( talk) 22:16, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
- "Household name" is not a notability criterion, in the absence of substantive content and sourcing about his specific role in the campaign. Anybody could simply claim to be a household name — we require considerably more than just nominal verification that he got a couple of pieces of media coverage.
Bearcat (
talk) 22:19, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
- No, he didn't claim to be. The journalist in the reliable third-party source did. Do you have access to Newspapers.com please?
Zigzig20s (
talk) 22:22, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
- It's not a statement that constitutes a notability claim in and of itself regardless of who did or didn't say it. The key to making him notable enough to have a standalone Wikipedia article is significantly more substance, and significantly more sourcing, than is present here about his specific role in the campaign, not just the mere fact that anybody (regardless of whether it was him or anybody else) once called him a "household name".
Bearcat (
talk) 22:29, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
- I am disappointed. I posted a nice note on the talkpage of WikiProject LGBT Studies for other editors to work together and expand it. I will try to spend some time on Newspapers.com but I am feeling very lonely indeed right now!
Zigzig20s (
talk) 22:31, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
- Posting a nice note to a wikiproject to ask for help in improving an article is all very well and nice, but it doesn't in and of itself exempt the article from AFD consideration if there are problems with it.
Bearcat (
talk) 22:39, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
- Why aren't you trying to improve the article instead of nominating it for AFD? Please try to be constructive. Wikipedia is supposed to be a collaborative work in progress...
Zigzig20s (
talk) 22:51, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
- Being "constructive" does not require me to suspend my own judgement about an article's includability or lack thereof. I'm entitled to have a different opinion than you do about whether an article topic has an adequate claim of notability or not, and am under no obligation to set my own judgement aside just because somebody complains that taking it to AFD for discussion is somehow "uncollaborative". Everything and everyone that exists is not always automatically an appropriate article topic, so nothing obligates every Wikipedian to personally participate in "improving" an article that they don't view as sufficiently improvable. For starters, the dead escort stuff still has to go away entirely, because it's still an extremely sensitive
WP:BLP matter that still isn't sourced solidly enough to meet the heightened standard of airtight hypersourcing that content that outrageously sensitive would have to meet to become appropriate for inclusion in an encyclopedia.
Bearcat (
talk) 23:22, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
- I don't think it should be redacted because it's a fact; no one is doubting it. The allegations from the escort's mother are not included, however. Since Buck was the leader of the Meacham impeachment campaign, he should have had an article prior to this incident anyway.
Zigzig20s (
talk) 23:55, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
- It's not whether or not it's a fact that's the issue; it's that it's a sensitive fact with
WP:BLP implications which falls afoul of the rule that Biographies of living persons ("BLPs") must be written conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives; the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment. For something like that to be appropriate for inclusion in a Wikipedia article, it would have to meet a significantly higher burden of both importance and sourceability than straightforwardly uncontroversial details about him would. As in, it's not enough that it happened, and it's not enough that it's sourceable to one or two pieces of local coverage in the local newspaper of the city where he lives: it's sensitive enough that you would need to megasource the fact that it was a critical detail that the world needed to know about him badly enough to justify a permanent invasion of his personal privacy rights. People three and five and ten time zones away who never heard of him before today now know this about his private life — so there needs to be a reason why something that sensitive and unseemly was an important thing that we needed to learn.
Bearcat (
talk) 07:13, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
- I left out the info about the meth use for that reason, even though that's in the RS... I don't think the death is a BLP violation. It's only mentioned in passing in the "personal life" section, and contextualized. But "People three and five and ten time zones away" will google him and find much, much worse.
Zigzig20s (
talk) 07:40, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
- The death itself is still sensitive enough to require a much higher burden of importance. Mentioning it without any real context for why it's being mentioned directly implies that there's something prurient that we're leaving out.
Bearcat (
talk) 07:55, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
- No, I don't think so. I think there are enough RS, and the article would be prurient if we mentioned the meth use, the diary, etc. Anyway, we disagree, that's fine. I've added more referenced info about his role in the Meacham impeachment campaign--does this still look like an AFD situation to you? Otherwise you could withdraw this and we could take the other issues to the article talkpage instead. But if you still think this should get deleted, I don't have much to add and I will let other editors discuss this AFD nomination. Zigzig20s ( talk) 08:05, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
- The death itself is still sensitive enough to require a much higher burden of importance. Mentioning it without any real context for why it's being mentioned directly implies that there's something prurient that we're leaving out.
Bearcat (
talk) 07:55, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
- I left out the info about the meth use for that reason, even though that's in the RS... I don't think the death is a BLP violation. It's only mentioned in passing in the "personal life" section, and contextualized. But "People three and five and ten time zones away" will google him and find much, much worse.
Zigzig20s (
talk) 07:40, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
- It's not whether or not it's a fact that's the issue; it's that it's a sensitive fact with
WP:BLP implications which falls afoul of the rule that Biographies of living persons ("BLPs") must be written conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives; the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment. For something like that to be appropriate for inclusion in a Wikipedia article, it would have to meet a significantly higher burden of both importance and sourceability than straightforwardly uncontroversial details about him would. As in, it's not enough that it happened, and it's not enough that it's sourceable to one or two pieces of local coverage in the local newspaper of the city where he lives: it's sensitive enough that you would need to megasource the fact that it was a critical detail that the world needed to know about him badly enough to justify a permanent invasion of his personal privacy rights. People three and five and ten time zones away who never heard of him before today now know this about his private life — so there needs to be a reason why something that sensitive and unseemly was an important thing that we needed to learn.
Bearcat (
talk) 07:13, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
- Yes, you're entitled to nominate it for AFD, but my impression is that you saw my note on the talkpage of WikiProject LGBT Studies and instead of replying there, you went straight to AFD. I apologize if that's not the case, but if it is, it makes the WP talkpage unsafe for discussion.
Zigzig20s (
talk) 23:57, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
- And what on earth would have given you that impression, exactly? Do you think that's the only way people can ever find recently created articles? Don't you think maybe I review User:AlexNewArtBot/LGBTSearchResult at least once a week quite independently of whether I've paid any attention to talk page discussions or not? Bearcat ( talk) 07:13, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
- I don't think it should be redacted because it's a fact; no one is doubting it. The allegations from the escort's mother are not included, however. Since Buck was the leader of the Meacham impeachment campaign, he should have had an article prior to this incident anyway.
Zigzig20s (
talk) 23:55, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
- Being "constructive" does not require me to suspend my own judgement about an article's includability or lack thereof. I'm entitled to have a different opinion than you do about whether an article topic has an adequate claim of notability or not, and am under no obligation to set my own judgement aside just because somebody complains that taking it to AFD for discussion is somehow "uncollaborative". Everything and everyone that exists is not always automatically an appropriate article topic, so nothing obligates every Wikipedian to personally participate in "improving" an article that they don't view as sufficiently improvable. For starters, the dead escort stuff still has to go away entirely, because it's still an extremely sensitive
WP:BLP matter that still isn't sourced solidly enough to meet the heightened standard of airtight hypersourcing that content that outrageously sensitive would have to meet to become appropriate for inclusion in an encyclopedia.
Bearcat (
talk) 23:22, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
- Why aren't you trying to improve the article instead of nominating it for AFD? Please try to be constructive. Wikipedia is supposed to be a collaborative work in progress...
Zigzig20s (
talk) 22:51, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
- Posting a nice note to a wikiproject to ask for help in improving an article is all very well and nice, but it doesn't in and of itself exempt the article from AFD consideration if there are problems with it.
Bearcat (
talk) 22:39, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
- I am disappointed. I posted a nice note on the talkpage of WikiProject LGBT Studies for other editors to work together and expand it. I will try to spend some time on Newspapers.com but I am feeling very lonely indeed right now!
Zigzig20s (
talk) 22:31, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
- It's not a statement that constitutes a notability claim in and of itself regardless of who did or didn't say it. The key to making him notable enough to have a standalone Wikipedia article is significantly more substance, and significantly more sourcing, than is present here about his specific role in the campaign, not just the mere fact that anybody (regardless of whether it was him or anybody else) once called him a "household name".
Bearcat (
talk) 22:29, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
- No, he didn't claim to be. The journalist in the reliable third-party source did. Do you have access to Newspapers.com please?
Zigzig20s (
talk) 22:22, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
- "Household name" is not a notability criterion, in the absence of substantive content and sourcing about his specific role in the campaign. Anybody could simply claim to be a household name — we require considerably more than just nominal verification that he got a couple of pieces of media coverage.
Bearcat (
talk) 22:19, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
- Delete Even if he had won the city council race he would almost certainly be unnotable. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 17:29, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CThomas3 ( talk) 19:11, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. CThomas3 ( talk) 19:11, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CThomas3 ( talk) 19:11, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
- Keep. With the additional sources there is enough to meet GNG. He is frequently called a "noted", "well-known", "long-time" or Democratic donor. There was certainly lots of coverage in Arizona in the 80s. And current coverage in LA recently, including some international press. There is a lot more that could be added to this article. No mention of "An early AIDS activist, Ed Buck organized the first AIDS education program in Arizona.", something about heckling Meg Whitman and Chris Cristie in 2010 [1]. Here [2] is recent coverage of the recall, it's Doonesbury cartoons, and a tie-in to the Trump election. MB 21:14, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
- Weak keep. This one is borderline, but I tend to agree with MB that it should be possible to meet GNG with better sourcing. What I'm scratching my head over is why it's specified—twice, in fact—that the escort was African American. Rivertorch FIRE WATER 05:22, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
- Because of the reliable third-party sources. I suppose this could be trimmed from the lede. Zigzig20s ( talk) 05:46, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
- It's been removed but actually this article makes it even more relevant... Zigzig20s ( talk) 06:58, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
- Delete – His municipal political career doesn't approach the criteria of WP:NPOL, coverage of his role with the recall campaign is purely in passing, and his coverage in these conspiracy-promoting websites in no way confers notability. While I respect how the article could appear to be a "borderline" case at first glance, as Rivertorch described it, I don't see what aspect of the subject's career or life generally could be covered by a source qualifying for WP:GNG. 142.160.131.202 ( talk) 06:36, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
- It's not "in passing". There are entire articles about his role in the Mecham affair, like
this,
this or
this. And the LA Times is not a conspiracy website.
Zigzig20s (
talk) 06:43, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
- Coverage of the recall was not "in passing". He was the leader of the recall effort and succeeded in gathering the necessary signatures. Here [3] is a NYT article in which he is discussed in four paragraphs. And here is a 2017 Huff Post [4] trying to parallel Mecham with Trump that is filled with coverage of Buck. MB 14:28, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
- It's not "in passing". There are entire articles about his role in the Mecham affair, like
this,
this or
this. And the LA Times is not a conspiracy website.
Zigzig20s (
talk) 06:43, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: A quick reminder: When commenting please be brief, confine yourself to what is germane to the discussion and cite policy/guidelines when possible. Thanks.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem ( talk) 01:01, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
Relisting comment: A quick reminder: When commenting please be brief, confine yourself to what is germane to the discussion and cite policy/guidelines when possible. Thanks.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem ( talk) 01:01, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
- Keep but trim The primary claim of notability has to be his involvement as an activist during Evan Mecham's governorship; the "dead hooker" stuff obviously can't be a claim of notability. The claim of "household name" in the Arizona Republic is likely puffery, but I see coverage in People magazine and the New York Times of his involvement in the recall. There's enough to keep this, but also BLP issues with the current version that MUST be addressed. power~enwiki ( π, ν) 03:13, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
- 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.
- 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 keep and improve. Rough consensus that the subject is notable, but as a WP:BLP needs serious editorial attention. ansh 666 09:27, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
Ed Buck
- Ed Buck ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
WP:BLP of a political activist and non-winning city council candidate, with no strong claim of notability per WP:NPOL and not enough reliable sourcing to get him past WP:GNG in lieu. Of the five sources here, one is a hyperlocal community blog, which is not a notability-assisting source at all; one is a piece of purely local coverage in the context of his private personal life, supporting content that's extremely sensitive and thus belongs nowhere near a Wikipedia article without spectacularly airtight mega-sourcing for it; and all of the other three are just supporting that he was involved with a campaign to impeach an officeholder, without supporting any indication that he was central enough to that campaign to require a standalone biography for it. It would need significantly more substance and significantly more sourcing about his specific role in the impeachment campaign before we could consider him notable for that. Bearcat ( talk) 21:57, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
- I've rephrased it. The article says, ""Recall drive. Bucking the system: unlikely figure leads challenge to Mecham"". Yes, he was central and already a "household name" in the 1980s. Zigzig20s ( talk) 22:16, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
- "Household name" is not a notability criterion, in the absence of substantive content and sourcing about his specific role in the campaign. Anybody could simply claim to be a household name — we require considerably more than just nominal verification that he got a couple of pieces of media coverage.
Bearcat (
talk) 22:19, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
- No, he didn't claim to be. The journalist in the reliable third-party source did. Do you have access to Newspapers.com please?
Zigzig20s (
talk) 22:22, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
- It's not a statement that constitutes a notability claim in and of itself regardless of who did or didn't say it. The key to making him notable enough to have a standalone Wikipedia article is significantly more substance, and significantly more sourcing, than is present here about his specific role in the campaign, not just the mere fact that anybody (regardless of whether it was him or anybody else) once called him a "household name".
Bearcat (
talk) 22:29, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
- I am disappointed. I posted a nice note on the talkpage of WikiProject LGBT Studies for other editors to work together and expand it. I will try to spend some time on Newspapers.com but I am feeling very lonely indeed right now!
Zigzig20s (
talk) 22:31, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
- Posting a nice note to a wikiproject to ask for help in improving an article is all very well and nice, but it doesn't in and of itself exempt the article from AFD consideration if there are problems with it.
Bearcat (
talk) 22:39, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
- Why aren't you trying to improve the article instead of nominating it for AFD? Please try to be constructive. Wikipedia is supposed to be a collaborative work in progress...
Zigzig20s (
talk) 22:51, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
- Being "constructive" does not require me to suspend my own judgement about an article's includability or lack thereof. I'm entitled to have a different opinion than you do about whether an article topic has an adequate claim of notability or not, and am under no obligation to set my own judgement aside just because somebody complains that taking it to AFD for discussion is somehow "uncollaborative". Everything and everyone that exists is not always automatically an appropriate article topic, so nothing obligates every Wikipedian to personally participate in "improving" an article that they don't view as sufficiently improvable. For starters, the dead escort stuff still has to go away entirely, because it's still an extremely sensitive
WP:BLP matter that still isn't sourced solidly enough to meet the heightened standard of airtight hypersourcing that content that outrageously sensitive would have to meet to become appropriate for inclusion in an encyclopedia.
Bearcat (
talk) 23:22, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
- I don't think it should be redacted because it's a fact; no one is doubting it. The allegations from the escort's mother are not included, however. Since Buck was the leader of the Meacham impeachment campaign, he should have had an article prior to this incident anyway.
Zigzig20s (
talk) 23:55, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
- It's not whether or not it's a fact that's the issue; it's that it's a sensitive fact with
WP:BLP implications which falls afoul of the rule that Biographies of living persons ("BLPs") must be written conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives; the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment. For something like that to be appropriate for inclusion in a Wikipedia article, it would have to meet a significantly higher burden of both importance and sourceability than straightforwardly uncontroversial details about him would. As in, it's not enough that it happened, and it's not enough that it's sourceable to one or two pieces of local coverage in the local newspaper of the city where he lives: it's sensitive enough that you would need to megasource the fact that it was a critical detail that the world needed to know about him badly enough to justify a permanent invasion of his personal privacy rights. People three and five and ten time zones away who never heard of him before today now know this about his private life — so there needs to be a reason why something that sensitive and unseemly was an important thing that we needed to learn.
Bearcat (
talk) 07:13, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
- I left out the info about the meth use for that reason, even though that's in the RS... I don't think the death is a BLP violation. It's only mentioned in passing in the "personal life" section, and contextualized. But "People three and five and ten time zones away" will google him and find much, much worse.
Zigzig20s (
talk) 07:40, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
- The death itself is still sensitive enough to require a much higher burden of importance. Mentioning it without any real context for why it's being mentioned directly implies that there's something prurient that we're leaving out.
Bearcat (
talk) 07:55, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
- No, I don't think so. I think there are enough RS, and the article would be prurient if we mentioned the meth use, the diary, etc. Anyway, we disagree, that's fine. I've added more referenced info about his role in the Meacham impeachment campaign--does this still look like an AFD situation to you? Otherwise you could withdraw this and we could take the other issues to the article talkpage instead. But if you still think this should get deleted, I don't have much to add and I will let other editors discuss this AFD nomination. Zigzig20s ( talk) 08:05, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
- The death itself is still sensitive enough to require a much higher burden of importance. Mentioning it without any real context for why it's being mentioned directly implies that there's something prurient that we're leaving out.
Bearcat (
talk) 07:55, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
- I left out the info about the meth use for that reason, even though that's in the RS... I don't think the death is a BLP violation. It's only mentioned in passing in the "personal life" section, and contextualized. But "People three and five and ten time zones away" will google him and find much, much worse.
Zigzig20s (
talk) 07:40, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
- It's not whether or not it's a fact that's the issue; it's that it's a sensitive fact with
WP:BLP implications which falls afoul of the rule that Biographies of living persons ("BLPs") must be written conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives; the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment. For something like that to be appropriate for inclusion in a Wikipedia article, it would have to meet a significantly higher burden of both importance and sourceability than straightforwardly uncontroversial details about him would. As in, it's not enough that it happened, and it's not enough that it's sourceable to one or two pieces of local coverage in the local newspaper of the city where he lives: it's sensitive enough that you would need to megasource the fact that it was a critical detail that the world needed to know about him badly enough to justify a permanent invasion of his personal privacy rights. People three and five and ten time zones away who never heard of him before today now know this about his private life — so there needs to be a reason why something that sensitive and unseemly was an important thing that we needed to learn.
Bearcat (
talk) 07:13, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
- Yes, you're entitled to nominate it for AFD, but my impression is that you saw my note on the talkpage of WikiProject LGBT Studies and instead of replying there, you went straight to AFD. I apologize if that's not the case, but if it is, it makes the WP talkpage unsafe for discussion.
Zigzig20s (
talk) 23:57, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
- And what on earth would have given you that impression, exactly? Do you think that's the only way people can ever find recently created articles? Don't you think maybe I review User:AlexNewArtBot/LGBTSearchResult at least once a week quite independently of whether I've paid any attention to talk page discussions or not? Bearcat ( talk) 07:13, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
- I don't think it should be redacted because it's a fact; no one is doubting it. The allegations from the escort's mother are not included, however. Since Buck was the leader of the Meacham impeachment campaign, he should have had an article prior to this incident anyway.
Zigzig20s (
talk) 23:55, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
- Being "constructive" does not require me to suspend my own judgement about an article's includability or lack thereof. I'm entitled to have a different opinion than you do about whether an article topic has an adequate claim of notability or not, and am under no obligation to set my own judgement aside just because somebody complains that taking it to AFD for discussion is somehow "uncollaborative". Everything and everyone that exists is not always automatically an appropriate article topic, so nothing obligates every Wikipedian to personally participate in "improving" an article that they don't view as sufficiently improvable. For starters, the dead escort stuff still has to go away entirely, because it's still an extremely sensitive
WP:BLP matter that still isn't sourced solidly enough to meet the heightened standard of airtight hypersourcing that content that outrageously sensitive would have to meet to become appropriate for inclusion in an encyclopedia.
Bearcat (
talk) 23:22, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
- Why aren't you trying to improve the article instead of nominating it for AFD? Please try to be constructive. Wikipedia is supposed to be a collaborative work in progress...
Zigzig20s (
talk) 22:51, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
- Posting a nice note to a wikiproject to ask for help in improving an article is all very well and nice, but it doesn't in and of itself exempt the article from AFD consideration if there are problems with it.
Bearcat (
talk) 22:39, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
- I am disappointed. I posted a nice note on the talkpage of WikiProject LGBT Studies for other editors to work together and expand it. I will try to spend some time on Newspapers.com but I am feeling very lonely indeed right now!
Zigzig20s (
talk) 22:31, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
- It's not a statement that constitutes a notability claim in and of itself regardless of who did or didn't say it. The key to making him notable enough to have a standalone Wikipedia article is significantly more substance, and significantly more sourcing, than is present here about his specific role in the campaign, not just the mere fact that anybody (regardless of whether it was him or anybody else) once called him a "household name".
Bearcat (
talk) 22:29, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
- No, he didn't claim to be. The journalist in the reliable third-party source did. Do you have access to Newspapers.com please?
Zigzig20s (
talk) 22:22, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
- "Household name" is not a notability criterion, in the absence of substantive content and sourcing about his specific role in the campaign. Anybody could simply claim to be a household name — we require considerably more than just nominal verification that he got a couple of pieces of media coverage.
Bearcat (
talk) 22:19, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
- Delete Even if he had won the city council race he would almost certainly be unnotable. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 17:29, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CThomas3 ( talk) 19:11, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. CThomas3 ( talk) 19:11, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CThomas3 ( talk) 19:11, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
- Keep. With the additional sources there is enough to meet GNG. He is frequently called a "noted", "well-known", "long-time" or Democratic donor. There was certainly lots of coverage in Arizona in the 80s. And current coverage in LA recently, including some international press. There is a lot more that could be added to this article. No mention of "An early AIDS activist, Ed Buck organized the first AIDS education program in Arizona.", something about heckling Meg Whitman and Chris Cristie in 2010 [1]. Here [2] is recent coverage of the recall, it's Doonesbury cartoons, and a tie-in to the Trump election. MB 21:14, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
- Weak keep. This one is borderline, but I tend to agree with MB that it should be possible to meet GNG with better sourcing. What I'm scratching my head over is why it's specified—twice, in fact—that the escort was African American. Rivertorch FIRE WATER 05:22, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
- Because of the reliable third-party sources. I suppose this could be trimmed from the lede. Zigzig20s ( talk) 05:46, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
- It's been removed but actually this article makes it even more relevant... Zigzig20s ( talk) 06:58, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
- Delete – His municipal political career doesn't approach the criteria of WP:NPOL, coverage of his role with the recall campaign is purely in passing, and his coverage in these conspiracy-promoting websites in no way confers notability. While I respect how the article could appear to be a "borderline" case at first glance, as Rivertorch described it, I don't see what aspect of the subject's career or life generally could be covered by a source qualifying for WP:GNG. 142.160.131.202 ( talk) 06:36, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
- It's not "in passing". There are entire articles about his role in the Mecham affair, like
this,
this or
this. And the LA Times is not a conspiracy website.
Zigzig20s (
talk) 06:43, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
- Coverage of the recall was not "in passing". He was the leader of the recall effort and succeeded in gathering the necessary signatures. Here [3] is a NYT article in which he is discussed in four paragraphs. And here is a 2017 Huff Post [4] trying to parallel Mecham with Trump that is filled with coverage of Buck. MB 14:28, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
- It's not "in passing". There are entire articles about his role in the Mecham affair, like
this,
this or
this. And the LA Times is not a conspiracy website.
Zigzig20s (
talk) 06:43, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: A quick reminder: When commenting please be brief, confine yourself to what is germane to the discussion and cite policy/guidelines when possible. Thanks.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem ( talk) 01:01, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
Relisting comment: A quick reminder: When commenting please be brief, confine yourself to what is germane to the discussion and cite policy/guidelines when possible. Thanks.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem ( talk) 01:01, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
- Keep but trim The primary claim of notability has to be his involvement as an activist during Evan Mecham's governorship; the "dead hooker" stuff obviously can't be a claim of notability. The claim of "household name" in the Arizona Republic is likely puffery, but I see coverage in People magazine and the New York Times of his involvement in the recall. There's enough to keep this, but also BLP issues with the current version that MUST be addressed. power~enwiki ( π, ν) 03:13, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
- 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.