- 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. I see a rough consensus that GNG has not been established here. Liz Read! Talk! 23:32, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- Louis Pendleton (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Biography of a dentist and local political activist, not properly sourced as having any strong claim to passing inclusion criteria for dentists or activists. From its creation in 2020 until today, this was a short stub staking its notability on leading a local political activism committee, and was sourced entirely to just one obituary in his local newspaper -- but one local obituary isn't enough to get a person over WP:GNG all by itself, and leading local committees isn't "inherently" notable enough to exempt a person from having to pass GNG.
Then within the past 24 hours, an anonymous IP vastly expanded it with a lot of additional information that may have been gleaned partly from private insider knowledge, without adding even one new source to support any of the new information, and there's still nothing in the newer information that would clinch free passage of WP:NPOL if the article is still referenced entirely to just one local obituary.
So I'm willing to withdraw this if somebody with better access to archived media coverage from the Shreveport area than I've got can find improved sourcing for it, but nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to have a lot more than just a local obituary for referencing. Bearcat (talk) 16:46, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Louisiana. Bearcat (talk) 16:46, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
- Delete: Vast section and paragraphs are mostly uncited and includes only one reference. and also subject is notable for one event, per WP:1E it doesn't fulfill significant coverage criteria.––kemel49(connect)(contri) 18:53, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
- Weak keep. He seems to be an important local figure in the Civil Rights Movement in Shreveport both according to his obituary and his inclusion on a black history media page (click on his article) This is also this news article (while from a local channel website; was a reposting of a CNN piece) which called him the first African-American dentist in Shreveport. He is also mentioned in this U.S. Commission on Civil Rights Report. Altogether, I think there is a credible claim to notability.4meter4 (talk) 18:14, 19 November 2024 (UTC)
- "Credible claim to notability" or not, we'd have to see a lot more reliable sourcing than has been brought to bear before a notability claim would turn into a notability lock. Bearcat (talk) 16:17, 22 November 2024 (UTC)
- There are two solid sources with in-depth coverage between the CNN piece and his obituary, and some minor ones pointing towards wider notability. Collectively I think this demonstrates notability. Ideally we would have a third strong source per WP:THREE; hence why the "weak keep" as opposed to keep.4meter4 (talk) 17:08, 22 November 2024 (UTC)
- Two sources isn't enough for GNG. If a person doesn't have "inherent" notability (e.g. holding an NPOL-passing office) that would require us to keep an article irrespective of its current quality of sourcing, then it takes quite a bit more than just two pieces of GNG-worthy coverage to get them over the "notable because media coverage exists" hump. Bearcat (talk) 19:47, 22 November 2024 (UTC)
- There are two solid sources with in-depth coverage between the CNN piece and his obituary, and some minor ones pointing towards wider notability. Collectively I think this demonstrates notability. Ideally we would have a third strong source per WP:THREE; hence why the "weak keep" as opposed to keep.4meter4 (talk) 17:08, 22 November 2024 (UTC)
- "Credible claim to notability" or not, we'd have to see a lot more reliable sourcing than has been brought to bear before a notability claim would turn into a notability lock. Bearcat (talk) 16:17, 22 November 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:31, 19 November 2024 (UTC)Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Just Step Sideways from this world ..... today 23:42, 26 November 2024 (UTC)
- Delete. Contra Bearcat, there is nothing in GNG that says "two" is not "multiple", but we don't even have two. (WP:THREE is an essay on being persuasive at AfD, not a guideline.) The obituary source in the article is one of non-independent obituaries submitted by family members, not an editorially independent piece. The CNN/KBZK article is SIGCOV in a secondary, independent, reliable source, but the KTBS piece offered by 4meter4 is four sentences long and does not constitute SIGCOV. In the absence of another qualifying source, this is a GNG failure. Dclemens1971 (talk) 21:52, 3 December 2024 (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.