Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Clyde Lewis (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. Consensus is that there are not enough secondary sources on Lewis himself to satisfy Wikipedia's notability criteria (that is, the criteria of Wikipedia in 2018, as opposed to that of 2007). The show, on the other hand, might be notable enough for an article if appropriate sources can be found. clpo13(talk) 23:45, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

Clyde Lewis
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This was nominated before and closed as "keep" (by someone who is sorely missed), but the discussion wasn't very deep, and a close look at the sources reveals there really isn't much to it--just the one article from the alternative weekly Portland Mercury in the "man bites dog" category. Google doesn't offer anything reliable either. Not notable per GNG. Drmies (talk) 04:36, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions.  MT Train Talk 11:44, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree, Delete. No recent news hits and the main general results are his media site, Twitter (including this), Facebook, and Youtube videos. The one article referenced above would be covered by WP:NEWSBRIEF. No sign of ongoing notability. Home Lander (talk) 13:26, 3 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete, surprised it lasted this long, I do not see any notability. --kelapstick(bainuu) 16:15, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete Non-notable non-entity; this is the extent of the covergae of him in third-party, independent reliable sources: Almost nothing; certainly not of the depth or persistence needed to meet the basic requirements of WP:ANYBIO. —SerialNumber54129  paranoia / cheap sh*t room 16:22, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep. The fact that it is a long running nationwide radio show makes it notable. There is too much ongoing censorship, closed mindedness and anti-freedom of speech. Wikiperson777 (talk) 4:16, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep. What Wikiperson777 said above.Localemediamonitor (talk) 08:37, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete. Agree with the subject's lack of notability for the purposes of Wikipedia. The show might be notable, but this article is not about the show. Further explanation available on my user page if desired. Mordant Kitten (talk) 09:33, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 22:25, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 22:25, 6 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete. Having or not having a Wikipedia article is not a question of free speech vs. censorship, it's a question of notability vs. non-notability — but notability is not established by what an article says, it's established by how well the article reliably sources what it says. However, the referencing here is far too dependent on his own primary source content about himself, which does not help to establish notability: people get Wikipedia articles by being the subject of reliable source coverage, not by being the author of their own self-published sources about themselves. The only reference that actually counts as a reliable or notability-assisting source is a piece in his own hometown alt-weekly — so that reference would be fine if the rest of the sourcing around it were better, but it does not singlehandedly confer a WP:GNG pass all by itself as an article's only valid source. Nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to hand him an automatic inclusion freebie just because he exists — but the sourcing is simply not cutting it. Bearcat (talk) 16:00, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Bearcat and Mordant Kitty make good points. It's a difficult choice. There are only two news articles on Lewis to use as reliable secondary sources; the other sources are primary. This would argue for non-notability. On the other hand, the radio program is syndicated with a national audience, which would argue for notability and for using a sprinkling of primary sources in addition to the secondary sources, which in the past Wiki editors have judged as reasonable and in good faith.Localemediamonitor (talk) 10:17, 9 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete way too much of the article is based on Lewis's own statements, not on reliable 3rd party secondary sources. The fact that this article was kept in 2007 was a true travesty that set Wikpedia on a couse of avoiding any reasonable criteria for notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:19, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Well, I wouldn't go so far as to say the decision set Wikipedia on that course. That's a lot of responsibility and culpability for one little article to shoulder.. :D Mordant Kitten (talk) 00:46, 10 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete - no mainstream media coverage for him or his show. You want an example of a Wikipedia keep travesty?  Check this recent one out, incredibly poor sourcing and all. [] This one looks great compared to that. TimTempleton (talk)  (cont)  05:00, 10 May 2018 (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.