Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lance Kennedy


 * 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.  Phantom Steve / talk &#124; contribs \ 23:38, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Lance Kennedy

 * – ( View AfD View log )

"Being related to a notable person in itself confers no degree of notability upon that person."
 * Individual is apparently a politician, but has not occupied any international, national, or statewide office; nor is he a major local political figure receiving significant press coverage.
 * Further, individual has not received "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject of the article." Most of the sources cited are on websites controlled by that individual.
 * Notably, none of these websites/nonprofits themselves appear to have Wikipedia pages. An ideal solution would be to merge this page into those. Perhaps it should be merged into Texas College Republicans.
 * Given the lack of notability and the authorship largely by a single individual, this article may be autobiographical: WP:AUTO.GimliDotNet (talk) 18:08, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Per WP:BIO, I believe this article meets the criteria for notability. Theseus1776 (talk) 18:11, 4 December 2011 (UTC) *Keep I think the AICB section alone makes him a notable person. The large scale operations of his charity work seem perfectly notable to me. I'm not sure that his political activism work makes he notable, but that's besides the point because he is notable for other things IJA (talk) 18:47, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Other articles reference similar individuals as "politicians;" see Henrik_Asheim or Eskil Pedersen, etc. Webster's Dictionary defines a politician as: ": a person experienced in the art or science of government; especially : one actively engaged in conducting the business of a government 2 a : a person engaged in party politics as a profession
 * Most, if not all, of the sources are from independent sources. How did you verify control of websites by subject?
 * Create one. They meet notability requirements.
 * He seems to be the primary subject of the articles, or deal with him directly in them. This means the subject is notable, not just associated with notable subjects.
 * Most of the articles are from independent, third-party sources, that is the requirement for NPOV status.
 * Keep - I agree with Theseus. Per the guidelines this article seems to meet the criteria for WP to me too. --Kumioko (talk) 18:41, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment - none of the third party links mention Lance, only the charities own links. Notability isn't achieved by doing something large.. but by being written about in 3rd party sources. GimliDotNet (talk) 19:08, 4 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment - I haven't had time to look into all of the citations listed in the article. But the first 10 or so I looked at didn't have any mention at all of Lance Kennedy.  They were about various organizations, etc., and not about him.  To make this conversation a bit easier for evaluation, could someone who believes this is a Keep please point to some independent reliable third party sources that give significant coverage to Lance Kennedy directly?  With those he may pass WP:GNG, but based on the little sample I have looked at so far I don't see it. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 20:51, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment - It appears that some of the keep !votes on this Afd appeared after canvassing. I have explained the issue with that directly to the editor here, but thought it would be important in evaluating this AfD to be aware of any potential biases created by such canvassing.  ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 21:04, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete -- there are a few valid references but most of the others are junk (websites, Wordpress etc) so the article, if it stays, should be trimmed substantially.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 22:17, 4 December 2011 (UTC) I am changing my vote to delete since it does not appear to be much progress here in trimming this article down, and using only valid references. If the article is improved (shortened) I may switch my vote back but it is the responsibility of the article's creators to observe Wikipedia's rules and follow them, and not my task to rewrite this article.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 12:22, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment - I say delete it. Theseus1776 is just Lance himself, and it's obvious (even more so when you look at his "ancestor's" page, John J. Kennedy.  90% of the edits there are done by Theseus1776).  I don't think a page should be created and maintained by the person it's referencing.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.246.191.208 (talk) 22:22, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment - I've removed some of the extraneous stuff that wasn't about the subject and was instead about organizations. There is still more trimming needed likely if the article is kept.  ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 23:04, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
 * My sense is the article (if it stays) should only be a paragraph at most -- or whatever is supported by good references. It will make the article tighter, more effective; right now, I simply do not believe much of the content in it since the references are mostly invalid.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 23:25, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 00:11, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 00:12, 5 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete The references don't even state his name and most of them are just silly blogs, not reliable third party sources. IJA (talk) 13:43, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete Many of the original article's sources did not make specific mention of Lance Kennedy. Some of those were trimmed.  The article was also trimmed to remove extraneous information about organizations that was not about Lance Kennedy in an attempt to move the article closer to something that could be reliably sourced.  Unfortunately when at that state it appears that there are not sufficient significant independent reliable sources to establish notability for the subject.  Since that trimming some of the deleted extraneous content has been readded by the original article author once again making the largest part of the article not directly about Lance Kennedy.  It appears there simply is not enough independent reliable source coverage to pass WP:GNG, and as such the article should be deleted. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 16:01, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete. Not enough coverage in reliable sources to support a standalone BLP. The content is either unreliable or based on school newspaper sources, and does not legitimately establish notability. -- Kinu  t/c 21:00, 5 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete as having insufficient coverage in independent third-party sources. If such sources are integrated into the article, feel free to ping my talk page. Stuartyeates (talk) 07:27, 9 December 2011 (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.