Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bill Luckett (businessman) (2nd nomination)


 * 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. Taking the previous AFD into consideration, the arguments for the inclusion of this article have failed to show how this article's subject actually passes WP:GNG. All significant press coverage has been almost entirely local, and so far no other sources have been produced to show how Luckett is notable outside of local sources. Given this, the arguments for this article's removal have the stronger bearing. &mdash; Coffee //  have a cup  //  beans  // 19:25, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Bill Luckett (businessman)
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Non-notable local official and unsuccessful candidate for more important office; fails WP:POLITICIAN as I read it. Orange Mike &#x007C;  Talk  02:45, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep at all. blastertalk! see 20:26, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
 * WP:JUSTAVOTE . LibStar (talk) 15:37, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mississippi-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:31, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:31, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:31, 4 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete. Mayor of a small city and unsuccessful gubernatorial candidate. Non-notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 21:43, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete - fails WP:GNG, WP:POLITICIAN, and User:Bearian/Standards. Unless there's more to this than I see in the article, he's not notable. His name is common enough so that an online search is very difficult. FWIW, I removed what appears to be a bad link to a Chinese-character website that is a redirect of his old gubernatorial campaign website. Bearian (talk) 18:09, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I am OK with a merge or redirect as suggested below. Bearian (talk) 19:39, 25 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Procedural Keep and a trout for the nominator. The same nominator brought this up before and it closed a Keep. Notability is Not Temporary. This was not closed as No Consensus, it was closed as Keep. The nominator apparently didn't like that result and is trying again. It would be an absolutely horrible precedent to allow this sort of shenanigans to be rewarded. Carrite (talk) 18:16, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
 * consensus can change. LibStar (talk) 12:33, 20 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment - For convenience, here is my post from the last time that the nominator nominated this: "A really obnoxious gutting done to this piece which is now a pretty worthless stub. THIS counts towards GNG, for sure, it is beyond typical politician coverage. With due respect to the nominator, I'm gonna weigh in tentatively on the Keep side here... Carrite (talk) 17:19, 17 March 2013 (UTC)"
 * "THIS is campaign-related coverage, yes, but it includes good biographical material for a reexpansion of this piece if this ends a Keep. Carrite (talk) 17:24, 17 March 2013 (UTC)"
 * "THIS from the Jackson Free Press indicates that he owns his blues club in partnership with Mississippi Delta native Morgan Freeman. Carrite (talk) 17:26, 17 March 2013 (UTC)"
 * "More, THIS from the Memphis Daily News (not campaign related) details then end of their 10 year partnership as owners of a Clarksdale eatery. Carrite (talk) 17:28, 17 March 2013 (UTC)"
 * "And HERE is more coverage from the Memphis Daily News with a photo of attorney Luckett and actor Freeman on the groundbreaking of their Clarksdale blues club. Carrite (talk) 17:31, 17 March 2013 (UTC)"


 * Uncertain I said keep last time on the basis of the GNG, but I am uncertain if any of the activities that the references refer to have any bearing on notability. I have become very reluctant to base an argument on the GNG when it refers to very local things of no particular note. But in the past we have often done so, except where the results would be absurd. Whether it is absurd here is a matter of judgment.  DGG ( talk ) 06:42, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, &mdash; Coffee //  have a cup  //  beans  // 18:32, 15 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete - Routine campaign coverage for an ultimately unsuccessful candidacy, there's really nothing here that asserts notability for this individual. Tarc (talk) 21:12, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete fails WP:GNG and WP:POLITICIAN, all sources are overly local. Secret account 04:21, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
 * delete agree with Tarc's assessment. Routine coverage and does not establish WP:POLITICIAN. LibStar (talk) 12:38, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Mississippi gubernatorial election, 2011. It is a common and acceptable practice for a losing candidate of an executive position of a subnational government to redirect to a relevant election page. Otherwise I am in agreement with  DGG Enos733 (talk) 22:58, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep Notable (albeit barely) for more than one topic. I have a difference of opinion that the sources are overly local, as coverage spans across multiple States and the Memphis and Jackson papers are widely read.  Neither is the coverage WP:ROUTINE.  Consensus may change, but I agree that notability is not temporary..  Meets WP:GNG.    78.26   (I'm no IP, talk to me!) 13:13, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep, mayor is a notable post. --Soman (talk) 02:34, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Not automatically, no, otherwise there would be a specific criteria for mayors at WP:POLITICIAN. Refer to part 2 there, which reads "Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage...".  This person does not meet that threshold. Tarc (talk) 02:52, 24 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete. Obviously there will be coverage for an unsuccessful candidate, but that does not mean he meets the notability thresholds. Stifle (talk) 17:45, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep "Obviously there will be coverage for a defeated candidate" is exactly the reason for keeping the articles. I'm no fan of the using the GNG in all cases, but politics is one of the ones where it works fairly well. In fact, that there will be coverage is such cases for major party nominees in a two party system is the reason we should a as a matter of course accept all articles on them if the office is a national office, or governor or a state or province. It will save a lot of discussion and do no harm--it's the sort of material expected in an encyclopedia.We make our own guidelines by what we decide to do here. &#39;DGG (at NYPL)&#39; (talk) 19:19, 27 January 2014 (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.