Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Charles Lollar

Add links
From 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 keep. LFaraone 01:35, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Charles Lollar

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
Charles Lollar (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)

Non-notable candidate for Congress. 90% of the article is entirely unsourced. The only sourced sections say "he ran for Congress and lost" and "he has been mentioned by someone as a possible candidate for Governor". The references listed do not provide significant coverage from 3rd party sources. Half of the references provided only mention him in passing, to say "he lost a race for Congress". The others are broken links, his personal website and youtube videos of speeches by other people. Fails WP:GNG and WP:POLITICIAN. Tiller54 (talk) 19:18, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:23, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:23, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:23, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, the context for the BET article is his role as a delegate to the 2012 Republican National Convention, but otherwise you're right. As far as WP:BLP1E is concerned though, I gather there's a precedent to apply it to unsuccessful electoral candidates but I think it's usually wrong-headed since all three conditions must be met, and the second and third rarely are. Elections to the U.S. House of Representatives are significant events and the role of a major-party nominee (and some minor party/independent candidates, and some unsuccessful primary candidates) is substantial. I also don't see how people who run for elected office can be considered low-profile individuals; and in this case he's clearly received coverage in the context of other events (such as ongoing speculation as to his plans for the 2014 elections; note that BLP1E's first condition doesn't require "significant coverage", only "coverage"). – Arms & Hearts (talk) 16:31, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Simply being a nominee for the House isn't of itself particularly notable, as WP:POLITICIAN states. In Lollar's case there's literally nothing else to say about him: all the sections on his early life and previous career are completely unsourced. Being a nominee for the House doesn't necessarily make someone notable. Even being a nominee for statewide office doesn't establish notability. For example, the Republican nominee for the Senate from Maryland in 2012, Daniel Bongino, doesn't have his own article, and he was also speculated about running for Governor in 2014. There's nothing to say about Lollar that can't, like Bongino, be summed up in 1 line on the gubernatorial election page: he unsuccessfully ran for Congress in 2010, someone said he might run for Governor in 2014. Tiller54 (talk) 23:29, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Something of a straw man: I've never argued that being a nominee for the House is a cause for notability. My argument is that he meets WP:GNG (see coverage linked above), and in this case that isn't outweighed by WP:BLP1E (for reasons outlined above). For what it's worth I agree that the article's in terrible shape, if I get the time today and can be bothered I'll try to do some work on it. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 09:54, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well you said "I also don't see how people who run for elected office can be considered low-profile individuals" and I was just pointing out what WP:POLITICIAN says. There are countless failed Congressional candidates who are then speculated about running for some other office and there's nothing in Lollar's article that makes him more notable than the rest. The coverage of his congressional campaign basically amounts to "he ran, he lost", which doesn't establish notability, per WP:POLITICIAN. Tiller54 (talk) 11:31, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Apparently working his constituents, Lollar was recently featured in Business Queen Anne's, a self-styled "A Coalition for Economic Development and Responsible Government." He was featured in their APRIL 2013 on-line news letter here - http://businessqueenannes.com/news-pdf/news-apr-2013.htm
Update on "The only sourced sections say "he ran for Congress and lost" and "he has been mentioned by someone as a possible candidate for Governor"." The above entry on the April 2013 sourced on-line "Business Queen Anne's" invited speaking engagement demonstrates that this earlier statement is not correct and will be further negated as the 2014 Maryland congressional race heats up. MY opinion - Wikipedia Tiller54 who doesn't have any info is a political operative from the democratic side attempting to remove this article as a pre-election season political move. This editor has already removed most every positive text on Lollar already. NO surprise, here. I've seen this time and time again. THIS long-time, wikipedia editior, (SIMONATL) does NOT work nor is connected with Lollar or his election efforts in any way. I just think he's a significant person for a wikipedia article, just as were several other individuals wrote 1st time wikipedia articles for in the past. Several were unsuccessfully challenged by people with a clear political bias. I'm a political independent, myself. User:SimonATL (talk) 10:00, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
More evidence that this is a political "hit" on Lollar. Tiller54 has removed any reference to the clearly documented fact that Lollar served in the Armed Forces of the United States, in particular, that he was a US Marine, and an officer in the US Marine Corps. What a sad pathetic attempt to REMOVE anything positive about Lollar. Can YOU tell me why Lollar's service in the US Marine Corps as an office was removed? SimonATL (talk) 00:02, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Probably because it was unsourced. See WP:V and WP:AGF. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 12:55, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The unsourced claims were removed because they were... unsourced.
  • That reference you just posted, from "Business Queen Anne's" is broken. Just like half the sources on the article were (not that it's even a WP:RS in the first place).
  • I am not "a political operative from the democratic side" nor is this "a political "hit" on Lollar". Not only am I not a "Democratic political operative", I'm not even American. Criticising my removal of unsourced content by attacking me is not on. You claim to be a "long-time, wikipedia editior". Have you never even heard of WP:NPA and WP:AGF? Tiller54 (talk) 16:59, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Tiller54. Sorry to have offended you, but, unfortunately, YES, I HAVE dealt with political operatives. I'm only interested in an objective article on Lollar. I think he DOES merit "coverage" beyond a one-liner. I'll update the article with sources in-line with Wikipedia policy. And yes - I SHOULD "assume good faith" but I've sure seen its opposite on wikipedia, too. Thanks for your understanding. SimonATL 15:09, 10 June 2013 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Charles_Lollar&oldid=1071345786"