Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/JC Lamkin


 * 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.  Majorly  (o rly?) 18:05, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

JC Lamkin

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Subject of article does not meet notabiity guidelines of WP:BIO. Local radio personality with no significant media coverage other then blogs and a small mention in a national publication. Nv8200p talk 13:03, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete, fails WP:BIO criteria. Terence Ong 13:42, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Request to Retain Entry This entry is a Peabody award candidate, civil rights activist and publisher of the social change website, WhatThePeopleREALLYThink.com at which she has covered stories such as "Katrina Survivors: An Update", Lybon Mabasa the President of Socialist Party of Azania, and Dick Gregory. Additionally, she has interviewed astronauts and CEO's. In summary, she has the most significant media coverage than any other entry on wikipedia.

Respectfully submitted,

Ken — Preceding unsigned comment added by KenHouston (talk • contribs)
 * "the most significant media coverage than any other entry on wikipedia". Wow ! Ohconfucius 03:04, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Apparently the understanding of why I placed emphasis on the word "significant" has been lost, so may I clarify...in over the millions of entry that wikipedia has, you may find less than 5 figures who have done more to serve their country, community and the arts than JC has, i.e. "significant" KenHouston 03:59, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment: I would advise you to avoid wide statements and such utterly subjective value judgements on your part. By implication, you seem to be putting her contributions above Abraham Lincoln, Mother Teresa, Mahatma Gandhi, Jesus Christ! Ohconfucius 01:45, 1 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment: Ha!  Ironically, you were only able to name four figures (I specifically said"you may find less than 5 figures"...all of whom are dead.  Furthermore, there is nothing subjective about my statements nor the article itself....everything I wrote was pure fact.  She is an undeniable force in activism, media, and business.  No person, dead or alive can say that.  It's just the facts, Sir.

KenHouston 01:55, 1 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Weak Delete - well, really, anybody who is in broadcasting is technically a Peabody award candidate, all you really need is $150 for the entrance fee. There's no announcement of finalists for the awards, so unless she wins, we have no indication of how she ranked among all the other entrants that year.  I looked at the sources, and of the ones that are reliable, she is only briefly mentioned - in fact, from what I can tell, she has just as many direct quotes printed in USA Today as I do, and I can tell you unequivocally, I'm not notable.  She is certainly on the cusp of notablity, so don't be afraid to re-create the article when she gets a bit more media coverage under her belt (or of she does happen to win the Peabody, since thats instantly notable). - CosmicPenguin (Talk) 22:29, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Reply to Weak Delete CosmicPenguin

No offense but if ^that^ is your criteria then I am afraid that you are going to have to delete several entries for radio personalities from wikipedia because there are personalities listed here who, unlike JC Lamkin, have never had any notable interviews nor awards. They are much less noteworthy, have zero articles written regarding their work (via blog, newspapers, magazines or other). Nor do they cross professional, activist and artistic lines; yet they have been approved and warmly received on wikipedia. Let me know if you would like me to list their entries so that you may lobby to have them deleted, also.

Kind regards,

Ken — Preceding unsigned comment added by KenHouston (talk • contribs)
 * Comment To inundate wikipedia with entries in order to obtain a "keep" on any particular article would be a blatant offense under WP:POINT. Ohconfucius 03:04, 31 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment I don't think that I understand. The JC Lamkin article is the only entry that I've made to wikipedia.KenHouston 04:02, 31 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I misunderstood. However, each article is a stand-alone, so just because other crap exists, an article which does not meet WP criteria should not be spared. We do it all the time, so please feel free to nominate any candidates you judge "unworthy" stating your reasons, and they will be considered on their merits and on your arguments. Ohconfucius 01:45, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

'''Also, she is an independent filmmaker. ''' I thought that I pointed that out earlier, but this info must have slipped through the e-cracks because clearly there is an overabundance of information that proves that JC Lamkin is wikipedia-able (yes, I just made up a new word, but it fits right :-).

But, seriously...her most recent film "The Struggle for Safer Streets" is an entry in the Blacklily Film and Music Festival in the category of social change documentary. Here is a link to the Blacklily site for fyi purposes: http://www.blacklilyfilm.org

I probably should have mentioned that earlier, too; but frankly, she has so many achievements that I am an not quite certain which achievements I should list and which achievement will just piss off the editors (btw, she is a candidate for the Peabody in two categories, Public Service and Documentary ;-)

Kind regards,

Ken

'''Also.... ''' Also, she has been nominated as one of Pennsylvania's outstanding technology individuals, again in TWO categories. More info: http://www.tccp.org/html/1,1128,gala_nominees,00.html

-Ken, again — Preceding unsigned comment added by KenHouston (talk • contribs)

The article is well written, but:
 * In the interests of transparency, Ken should declare his interest in the subject matter. KenHouston's only contributions are to the article in question, and to this debate; The photo in the article is listed as public domain and attributed to Ken Houston.
 * Gypsy Lane Technologies scores 164 Ghits, and the results show that it is a micro-enterprise which sells graphic design and computer training services, and which is engaged in community action (admittedly it won a $1000 prize from the Micro-enterprise boost program allowing it to purchase a video camera).
 * Women In Ministries scores 115 Ghits, most are for the generic use. The http://www.womeninministries.com site is down at the time of writing.
 * The Women's Opportunities Resource Center appears to be a cooperative local to the Philadelphia engaged in micro-finance, scoring 78 Ghits.
 * The Anita T. Connor Award does not appear to be a significant award. It scores 1 relevant Ghit
 * WhatThePeopleREALLYThink.com is unranked by Alexa
 * I find no articles on "Lamkin" on Bizwomen.com, whether for 2004, 2005, or 2006
 * the Bluetooth.org link is a personal blog of someone who was interviewed on "Technically speaking"
 * the USAToday article is a trivial mention per WP:N
 * nominations for awards don't count for much, only winning major awards do.

Conclusion: Delete, not a cat's chance in hell does the subject pass WP:BIO. Ohconfucius 03:04, 31 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep per Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions - 2.3 This number is big

"A commonly seen argument at AfD is "Subject has x number of y, that's notable". In fact, editors are fooling themselves if they think they know how many subscribers makes a notable journal on calligraphy, how much revenue makes a notable cardboard box producer, and how many pandas make a notable zoo. Not to mention the other 97 different 'big numbers' that could be used to justify arguing 'keep' in an AfD every day."

and 4.2 Google test "Although using a search engine like Google can be useful in determining how common or well-known a particular topic is, these arguments should never be the only criterion for a deletion."

also, the as you call it "personal blog of someone who was interviewed on "Technically speaking" is actually the executive director of the Bluetooth special interest group...whose membership holds over 6000 major corps.  Thanks. KenHouston 04:18, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

KenHouston 04:26, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep RE: Verification on "Bizwomen.com"  Is there a reason why you have omitted the link to the source so that others may attempt to verify?  Trey suspect.  At any rate, here is the link:  http://www.bizjournals.com/bizwomen/philadelphia/potm/?archive=1
 * Comment: the link was not omitted - it gave a404 error message, so I performed new searches. Ohconfucius 01:45, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

KenHouston 03:24, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep "RE: WhatThePeopleREALLYThink.com unranked by alexa", I for one certainly hope that you are kidding by even mentioning the alexa ranking since WhatThePeopleREALLYThink.com is the ONLY internet resource available that captures exclusive and otherwise unavailable culture and social change initiatives and leaders...actually, come to think of it, the website itself should be a wikipedia entry, too.

As an independent filmmaker whose film is appearing in a film festival, this entry meets the criteria KenHouston 03:52, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep

KenHouston 04:15, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Another notable source cited: The executive editor of PC Magazine http://jeremykaplan.blogspot.com/


 * Commment Ken, you are obviously enthusiastic about this article, and I hope you keep that enthusiasm as you embark on your wiki-career. You are correct that the number of google hits is not a strict indicator of how notable somebody is, but in this case it is making it difficult for us to verify the information in the article. I took a few minutes to look over the sources again, and unfortunately, I have to stand my my !vote - there was an awards lunchon put on by a group who's home page featured a story about Anita T. Conner, but the website lists no further information nor does it mention the name of the award, and nowhere is Lamkin's name associated with the award, so unfortunately, that bit of info is completely unsourced.  The film festival info is also unverifable, as the link you posted doesn't list the name of the movies participating, and Google provided us with no reliable verification that the movie "The Struggle for Safer Streets" was produced by Ms. Lamkin.  I did find a story in this local/regional newspaper  about Ms. Lamkin (page 8), and besides noting that the 4th paragraph of the wiki article was a borderline copyvio of the story, it did not appear to me that this is a reliable source, nor could I find any other mentions of Ms. Lamkin winning those awards.  It is quite obvious hat Ms. Lamkin is a powerful force within her community, but there are many, many people that are powerful forces in their communities around the world - and while thats admirable, if others aren't writing about their accomplishments, then we cannot verify them, and if we can't verify them, then they can't be here. - CosmicPenguin (Talk) 04:29, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

she is listed as the producer and director in the closing credits. Regarding the other items in question, they are verifiable, if not metatagged by google then via email, phone, etc. At any rate, I'm going to stick with my original position ...."Keep" KenHouston 04:50, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Commment In the film The Struggle for Safer Streets http://whatthepeoplereallythink.com/ss.html


 * 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.