Talk:Darrell C. Scott

Untitled

 * Greetings, I am working on the draft page for Darrell C. Scott and am seeking a collective opinion. Can we agree or disagree that the day Scott was named by President Donald Trump to be on his executive transition team, a position he still holds today, that appointment and position made him a notable person?  (Aside from the numerous secondary independent sources he has received significant coverage on listed in the draft).  I welcome your input.  Cllgbksr (talk) 15:45, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure, Cllgbksr. I'm not American, which makes me good for neutral admin actions that impact American politics, but bad for evaluating these kinds of niceties. I'll pass. (Noting in passing that RexxS isn't American either.) Bishonen &#124; talk 15:55, 12 March 2017 (UTC).
 * Inviting SwisterTwister to weigh in on the conversation.Cllgbksr (talk) 15:59, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Inviting user DGG for their opinion on the notability question. Cllgbksr (talk) 16:05, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Inviting SwisterTwister to weigh in on the conversation.Cllgbksr (talk) 15:59, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Inviting user DGG for their opinion on the notability question. Cllgbksr (talk) 16:05, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Inviting user DGG for their opinion on the notability question. Cllgbksr (talk) 16:05, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

To establish notability, you need "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" per WP:GNG. I disagree that Trump naming someone to be on his transition team makes them notable, as that's not one of our criteria. A Google search only turns up a couple of substantial pieces about Scott: a blog piece on "cleveland.com"; and an article "Who is Darrell Scott?" on International Business Times which is effectively a reprint of cleveland.com. You'll find that "Multiple publications from the same author or organization are usually regarded as a single source for the purposes of establishing notability" according to GNG, so I think you'll have difficulty convincing others that those are enough, especially as I doubt that cleveland.com has yet established a "reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" per WP:IRS. However, the first two sources you use, Washington Post and New York Times, are indisputably high-quality sources and the articles cited look fairly substantial. My advice would be to ask the reviewer why they thought those two were not sufficient to establish notability per GNG. Hope that helps --RexxS (talk) 16:53, 12 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Thanks for taking the time to give me your opinion. Will ask reviewer why they thought the WaPo and NY Times articles were not sufficient to establish notability per WP:GNG   as the reviewer, what say you?  Cllgbksr (talk) 18:56, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

^The question isn't exactly whether this is notable, but whether it would have a decent chance at passing AfD--if it might be notable afd is where we determine that, and if there's a reasonable chance of passing,the article should be able to have the chance of being examined there.
 * But I do not think it have a reasonable chance of passing AfD. Articles on peripheral figures in the 2016election and transition have not usually been accepted there. The importance is both minor and temporary.   DGG ( talk ) 19:06, 12 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Thanks DGG for your input. Appreciate. Cllgbksr (talk) 22:04, 12 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Located another article, significant secondary independent coverage per WP:GNG, NY Post, WaPo, NY Times should establish subjects notability.  Cllgbksr (talk) 22:15, 12 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Added another secondary independent significant coverage article, Daily Beast Cllgbksr (talk) 01:11, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Greetings. This gentleman has substantial coverage from Cleveland.com—read Plain Dealer—and National Review. That being said, there's no coverage independent of Trump. I couldn't cast a 'delete.' That said, I think you're pushing a category: new African-American 'conservatives.' I don't endorse issue-oriented editing. But if you put it up, and I'm paying attention, I'll contest any sort of issue oriented editing, for or against. See Articles for deletion/Becki Ronen. Tapered (talk) 03:23, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
 * To clarify, no 'lefty' issue pushing, either. Tapered (talk) 03:56, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

darn, my next article was going to be a puff piece on "Why people should vote Democrat"... j/k... thanks for your input. Cllgbksr (talk) 04:28, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Trump thumping 2020
https://www.politico.com/amp/news/2020/01/29/trump-black-voters-cash-giveaways-108072?__twitter_impression=true

Needs incorporation Wikipietime (talk) 23:45, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Conspiracy theorist
Twitter 11/5/2020; “ The Dems have been planning this for a long time now. I wouldn’t be surprised if we discovered that THEY released Covid upon the world in order to regain power in America. I don’t put ANYTHING past them!”

Worthy of inclusion. Wikipietime (talk) 04:23, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

Crickets? Wikipietime (talk) 11:53, 6 November 2020 (UTC)