Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joe Lucas


 * 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. L'Aquatique  [  talk  ] 19:03, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Joe Lucas

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Fails WP:BIO. VP of communications for a coal lobbying association. Quite a few ghits (almost 2000) for "Joe Lucas ACCCE", but this is to be expected -- the role of a communications officer is to issue press releases and conduct interviews, leading to their name being associated with many news articles. While he is mentioned many times on the web, there appears little about him that is independent. Your attention is drawn to the user name of the creator of this article, and that America's Power is an ACCCE campaign. &mdash; BillC talk 23:23, 21 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Weak delete For a lack of notability. As the nom states, there doesn't seem to be much written about the subject, other than a brief mention stating his title and occupation. (Although I'll happily withdraw if someone turns up some non-trivial mention by a reliable source.  However, I didn't find any via my quick google.)  B figura  (talk) 23:39, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep I am in complete agreement with the previous poster, there is not particular reason to delete this other than a lack of sources. I just added two where this man has been quoted in a news article.  I think this will suffice for WP:RS.  I had no trouble whatsoever finding very recent news mentions, leading me to believe that the topic itself is of sufficient quality for inclusion.  This might be of marginal use to Wikipedia for keeping up with emerging coal issues. -Theanphibian (talk • contribs) 02:25, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I had earlier replied on your talk page, but I will copy it here. The IEA study does not quote Lucas, either as an expert, or indeed at all. The study was released by the IEA, and Lucas is commenting on it in his office as communications officer. His comment occurs in a press release issued by the ACCCE. In other words, it's a press handout from a lobbying group welcoming a report which supports views they too endorse. As I said in the OP, there are no shortage of ghits linking this individual to press releases about the coal industry, it should be expected that there are. &mdash; BillC talk 02:41, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment I'd concur with BillC here. The references added really aren't about Joe Lucas in any non-trivial way, so they don't really establish notability. (And I'm not sure communications directors of firms are automatically notable). -- B figura (talk) 20:17, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I never intended to say that, and I don't think the language in the article implies it. The news is obviously quoting him on the subject of the study.  A press release from the organization itself is irrelevant - the point is that news covered it, including him.  I'm not sure how much focus on a person is required to form a RS for that person, but if you want a stronger focus, here is radio program that uses him as a panelist.  These examples are not just automatically linking him to releases with his name on it, they are specifically calling upon his credibility. -Theanphibian (talk • contribs) 21:47, 22 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eluchil404 (talk) 18:20, November 26, 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete Although he is mentioned in many news stories, there is not much about him from reliable sources. Tavix (talk) 18:55, 26 November 2008 (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.