Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lee Busby

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. (non-admin closure) CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:43, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Lee Busby

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:POLITICIAN. Un-elected candidate for public office who does not meet the primary notability criterion. Tdl1060 (talk) 04:46, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Seems notable enough to me. Covered in Time Magazine, Politico, Washington Post, many others. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.14.239.106 (talk) 07:38, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as creator. Meets WP:GNG. His candidacy garnered a lot of relatively detailed coverage (WaPo, TIME, etc). And it's not a WP:BLP1E situation either, as there's coverage about him as a sculptor, cited in the article, predating his candidacy. Sandstein 07:46, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- The Fox News article from October only had a trivial mention of Busby as a sculptor. He was not the subject of the article, and it does not come close to granting him the "significant coverage" necessary for him to meet the primary notability criterion.--Tdl1060 (talk) 08:17, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - But the "Southern Living" article and video is quite in-depth; together with the election-related coverage we do have enough substance for an article. Sandstein 08:35, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I would say this Time magazine article covering both the sculptures and the politics pretty much seals the deal: he's notable on two fronts, with coverage in very high qaulity sources. .198.58.171.47 (talk) 06:47, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:51, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:51, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:51, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:51, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Alabama-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:51, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep it's not BLP1E, as he has the election campaign coverage, as well as the sculpture coverage. The article could be expanded. He's clearly very notable based on the many many sources. Did nominator do WP:BEFORE? 198.58.171.47 (talk) 06:44, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I know nothing about Mr Busby, but any write-in candidate for the Alabama Senate election who has a chance of getting as many votes as the difference between the votes of the official party candidates is clearly of sufficient importance to merit a Wikipedia article. David Fremlin (Colchester, England)
- That's awfully WP:CRYSTALY. I haven't seen any polls that suggest that that might be the case.--Tdl1060 (talk) 21:31, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep At a minimum need to have this stub until post Alabama election. Clearly sufficient importance to merit a Wikipedia article. Discernable (USA) (unsigned entry by User:Discernable, who also left this link at end that screwed up other afds listed in deletion sorting categories.)

"Create articles about all the candidates and then delete the ones who didn't win after the election is over" is not how we do things on here. Absent a strong claim to preexisting notability for some other reason independent of their candidacy, a person has to win the election before they qualify to have an article created on here in the first place. Bearcat (talk) 22:36, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Being an as yet non-winning candidate in a future election is not, in and of itself, a notability criterion that gets a person into Wikipedia — a person has to win the election, not just run in it, to clear WP:NPOL. Jones and Moore both had preexisting notability for their prior careers as a lawyer and a judge before becoming candidates in the Senate election, which is why they have articles, but there's no evidence being shown here that Busby did: he would not have passed WP:NARTIST on either the volume or the depth of pre-campaign art-sourcing shown here, because neither the number of sources nor the depth of what they actually say about him would have been enough. And a smattering of campaign-related coverage is not in and of itself enough to claim that he passes GNG for the campaign itself, either — every candidate in any election anywhere could always show a smattering of campaign-related coverage, so to deem his candidacy a special notability case per se we would require significantly more coverage than most other candidates could always also show. When it comes to politics, our role is not to provide "equal time" to all candidates in every election — we are not a free publicity venue for aspiring future notables, but an encyclopedia on which an article does not become appropriate until after the person has already cleared a notability standard. Our governing principle is what will people still be looking for ten years from now, not who happens to be temporarily newsy today. No prejudice against recreation after election day if by some unlikely stroke of luck he somehow wins the seat, but nothing here is enough to already deem him notable today. Bearcat (talk) 22:32, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think he would pass either NARTIST or NPOL, in isolation. But taken together, the coverage for his art and for his candidacy - quite exceptional coverage for a fringe local candidate, including TV interviews, etc - comfortably passes WP:GNG. Sandstein 07:54, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think Sandstein has this right. Although the pre-campaign coverage of Busby is modest, the national attention he has received vaults him over the WP:GNG bar.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:23, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Too many editors are incapable of evaluating when insufficient notability in several fields combines to collectively constitute sufficient general notability, and that is what I see here. Taken in isolation, any one part of Lee Busby's biography may not justify an article, but in sum they absolutely do. Kiernanmc (talk) 17:18, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Per Kiernanmc, this is a borderline soldier, artist, and politician. 3 almosts combine to notability, and there is some high profile coverage prior to the run.Icewhiz (talk) 18:52, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This passes WP:GNG and there are not only un-elected officials on Wikipedia but even ones that are running in the future.--JAMillerKC (talk) 20:04, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Adequately sourced article that meets GNG. --HighFlyingFish (talk) 20:56, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not enough coverage to show notability. While I sympathize with those who will do anything to stop the victory of a man as morally bankrupt as Roy Moore, WIkipedia's purpose is not to right wrongs, and we should not scrap our standards of inclusion or use Wikipedia to seek to right great wrongs.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:20, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:POLITICIAN requires you to win an election. Doesn't pass WP:SOLDIER or WP:ARTIST either. Consider moving the article into the Draft space pending the election outcome. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:57, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What about the fact that he passes WP:GNG? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.163.154.101 (talk) 06:33, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep passes WP:GNG through he fails WP:POLITICIAN as of now.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 06:12, 5 December 2017 (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.