Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Lakian


 * 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. King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 23:44, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

John Lakian

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

Unsourced BLP stub. &mdash;  The Hand That Feeds You :Bite 13:07, 14 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep - Lack of current sourcing is not a valid reason for deletion. The nominator could have better contributed to the encyclopedia by searching for sourcing & fixing the article rather than sending it to AfD as there are 285 Google News hits and 47 Google Book hits for this individual.  He is a successful businessman, was the Republican candidate for Mass. Governor in 1982, was a Republican primary candidate for U.S. Senate in 1994, and vocally sued the Boston Globe for libel in 1984.  He has received extensive coverage for all four aspects. --ThaddeusB (talk) 13:26, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Note that simply running for candidacy is not going to satisfy WP:N. Neither does Google hits. If you can find enough sources in those Books to source his bio properly, I'll withdraw my nom. &mdash;  The Hand That Feeds You :Bite 16:31, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Do you honestly think all 332 hits are trivial mentions? Being covered in depth by multiple sources is what makes one notable.  Running for office doesn't make one notable, of course, but being covered extensively for said run does.  failing to get elected doesn't take the notability conferred by coverage away.  Additionally, he is covered for 4 distinct things: 2 failed candidacies, running a successful business, and a prominent libel case.  There is no requirement for two biographies to be written about him, merely that he be covered by 2 sources in depth which has clearly happened. --ThaddeusB (talk) 18:50, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I think that the number of hits does not necessarily correlate to accurate hits, much less non-trivial mentions. Keep in mind, this is a BLP: we need enough information to accurately create a bio of him from the sources, not just say, "He ran for office X times and lost. Then he was involved in a court case." &mdash;  The Hand That Feeds You :Bite 20:36, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment the article was recently turned into a stub. It used to be more extensive, and it used to have at least one source (if not more). But there were also BLP issues and users who were editing to attack the subject. There may be some salvageable stuff from the page history. -Andrew c [talk] 14:11, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
 * That's what drew me to the article & prompted the AfD. If we can't find enough BLP compliant material to make a biography, there shouldn't be an article. &mdash;  The Hand That Feeds You :Bite 16:31, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Possible Delete After reviewing the Google Book hits there is nothing in there that would seem to satisfy WP:N, there is no biographical information, it is almost all mentions of his candidacies. None of the hits of Google books were widely published. Definitely does not meet WP:POLITICIAN for his political activities. The only thing he might be notable for is the libel case in relation to his candidacy which resulted in a Time magazine article . I'll try to do more research on this but if I don't get the chance it seems like a Delete.Rcurtis5 (talk) 16:53, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: failed candidates are not automatically notable, but that doesn't mean they can't be notable as candidates if their candidacy had a significant affect on the election. --ThaddeusB (talk) 18:50, 14 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions.  -- the wub  "?!"  19:34, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions.  -- the wub  "?!"  19:34, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 16:33, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment: I have rewritten the article using a tiny portion of the available material. Extensive expansion is still possible, but the article current version should be sufficient establish notability & remove BLP concerns. --ThaddeusB (talk) 00:56, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Keep- Based on the re-write, there's enough notability and verifiable sources that a neutral article can be written. Umbralcorax (talk) 17:08, 21 July 2009 (UTC)


 * '''KEEP! If he got an article about him in Time, he meets WP:N Treedel (talk) 17:53, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep on the basis of the refs in the present article. DGG (talk) 02:32, 23 July 2009 (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.