Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Charles Lollar (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 keep. Good rationale was given that the subject passes WP:BASIC. (non-admin closure) Rollidan (talk) 23:32, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Charles Lollar
AfDs for this article:


 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Unsuccessful candidate for Gwinnett County, Georgia school board; governor of Maryland; U.S. House of Representatives; and Charles County Board of Commissioners fails WP:NPOL and WP:ANYBIO. If there is no consensus to delete, redirect to 2014 Maryland gubernatorial election KidAd  •  SPEAK  20:36, 28 February 2022 (UTC) Relisting comment: There is consensus that this is not a NPOL case. People disagree whether GNG is met instead. To help arrive at consensus, please cite specific sources and explain why they provide (or do not provide) GNG-level coverage. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   08:53, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Maryland. Shellwood (talk) 21:05, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Military, Africa, Georgia (U.S. state),  and Washington.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 22:50, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep clear pass on WP:BASIC. Mztourist (talk) 04:13, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
 * keep As far what I know, one of the criteria for NPOL is to win a significant election. But it doesn't say that loosing an election will make one ineligible for Wikipedia. Also, in light of last AfD discussions, it was well established that the subject passes GNG.Cirton (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 07:45, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep As noted in WP:NPOL, "[an] unelected candidate for political office [..] can still be notable if they meet the general notability guideline". I believe the references in the article clearly demonstrate the existence of WP:SIGCOV, so I suppose the only question is whether this is a case of WP:BIO1E. This, however, was already a topic of discussion in the previous AfD which resulted in keep. While consensus can certainly change, I think any BIO1E argument would be further hindered by the subject's second candidacy following the previous AfD. Let me know if I'm missing some relevant policy. -Ljleppan (talk) 08:40, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep References demonstrate notability of subject significantly. Ginbopewz (talk) 11:22, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete Failed candidates do not meet WP:NPOL. The argument around possible GNG notability is mostly run of the mill campaign coverage and would probably fail the ten year test. Bkissin (talk) 16:27, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
 * delete Per above. The mere fact that his campaigns can be documented isn't enough; it's routine coverage, and even if he is a perennial candidate (and he has a way to go, nothing like the notoriety that Robin Ficker has amassed) he isn't known for that. He didn't even come close to winning the GOP nomination in 2014. If some paper decides he needs coverage in his own right, we can reconsider, but right now he is a paragon of obscurity. Mangoe (talk) 00:41, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete He has not won and the coverage is routine. If he had won the 2014 primary we might have better coverage, in fact since the person who did win the 2014 primary won the general election, he might have won, but he was trounced in that primary, and we do not have actual coverage at a level to justify an article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:13, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep. While he is a perennially unsuccessful political candidate (and thus fails WP:NPOL), the coverage present in the article alone is enough to clearly pass WP:NBASIC. If this coverage were only in the coverage of one event there would be a policy-based reason to delete, but no such policy-based reason exists for coverage in the context of multiple events. WP:N requires two things for an article to merit an article: that WP:GNG and/or an WP:SNG be satisfied and that the article subject not be excluded under WP:NOT. I see clear evidence that at least one WP:SNG is satisfied (WP:NBASIC) and that WP:GNG is satisfied. The arguments of WP:MILL are the only sort of arguments that would challenge this article subject as being excluded under WP:NOT, but the essay does not enjoy community consensus. In this case, I think the essay does not have community consensus for a good reason—having one's career covered widely by independent reliable sources in the context of multiple events is what makes a person notable. In this case, there is no policy-based deletion reason that is given that stands up to scrutiny, while the article subject clearly meets the base requirements of WP:N. — Mhawk10 (talk) 19:05, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep per Mhawk10 passes WP:BASIC.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 19:25, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Comment. Since this was relisted, a list of sources that provide non-trivial coverage of Lollar that are available on newspapers.com include:

Relisting comment: Relisting to evaluate posted sources Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwaiiplayer (talk) 12:23, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
 * There is also coverage of this man in other news sources available online:
 * Since significant coverage addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content and significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material, the above sources clearly show that the man has been significantly covered by independent, reliable sources in the context of multiple events. This is what WP:GNG requires. Since he's clearly not a WP:BLP1E, this article should be kept. — Mhawk10 (talk) 15:45, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Since significant coverage addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content and significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material, the above sources clearly show that the man has been significantly covered by independent, reliable sources in the context of multiple events. This is what WP:GNG requires. Since he's clearly not a WP:BLP1E, this article should be kept. — Mhawk10 (talk) 15:45, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Keep passes on WP:BASIC. Patapsco913 (talk) 01:26, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep per Mhawk10 passes WP:BASIC. Jeni Wolf (talk) 15:25, 20 March 2022 (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.