Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Leslie Lynch King Sr.


 * 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.  MBisanz  talk 02:58, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Leslie Lynch King Sr.
AfDs for this article: 
 * Prior AFD

Notability is not inherited and aside from a single biological act this guy is a complete nonentity. I am unimpressed by the keep arguments advanced in [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Leslie_Lynch_King,_Sr. the 2007 AfD]. There doesn't appear to be anything of note about this man that is not already covered in Gerald Ford. If we have an article about a less consequential figure I can't think of it off hand. See also WP:1E. Ad Orientem (talk) 00:25, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:26, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:26, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:26, 18 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Then why doesn't' a link to the previous Afd appear in the discussion here? Did you create this Afd manually? I don't know how to add this, but I think it may need to be moved to Articles for deletion/Leslie Lynch King Sr. (2nd nomination). Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:31, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Im wondering that as well. I created the AfD with Twinkle. Noting the absence of the previous AfD I added a link in my nominating statement. That said I have no objection to moving the AfD. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:36, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
 * AH HAH! I see the problem. There was a comma in the title of the original AfD that has since been removed from the article name. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:43, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Okay, we can probably fix it then. I'd try to later, if no one else does. You've linked to it anyway. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:03, 18 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep Result in previous AFD discussion was keep due to existence of good sources. Jrheller1 (talk) 01:17, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
 * See WP:1E. The existence of sources is not the last word in notability. The bottom line is that this guy's sole claim to fame is one act which is more than adequately covered in Gerald Ford. Beyond that single incident he is a complete nonentity and there is no reason for an article. If this is not a case of 1E then that guideline should probably be done away with. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:36, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Saying that biological fatherhood is "one event" seems to be twisting WP:1E. Even if one does interpret biological fatherhood as "one event", WP:1E says "If the event is highly significant, and the individual's role within it is a large one, a separate article is generally appropriate. The assassins of major political leaders, such as Gavrilo Princip, fit into this category, as indicated by the large coverage of the event in reliable sources that devotes significant attention to the individual's role."  Surely being a biological father is more important than being an assassin! Jrheller1 (talk) 21:00, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Surely being a biological father is more important than being an assassin! - I could not disagree more strongly. -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:57, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Why? Gerald Ford's father put several years into the relationship with Gerald Ford's mother necessary to bring Gerald Ford into the world.  An assassin might spend several days preparing for an assassination. Jrheller1 (talk) 22:13, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
 * That might be worth some detail in an article on Gerald Ford's mother, and wouldn't be worth a stand-alone article even then. --Calton | Talk 06:43, 21 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Merge To the article on Gerald Ford anything on him that is worth noting.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:33, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep - He's the father of Gerald Ford, for goodness sake. In any case, there is a good deal of material about him in newspapers and in Jerald terHorst's biography of Ford (and elsewhere besides, I assume). Smmurphy(Talk) 20:23, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Just to be clear, my !vote is based on GNG, which he pretty clearly passes (I obliquely refer to in depth coverage in reliable sources in my previous comment). I didn't find terHorst's 1974 biography, but added material from Cannon and Cannon 2013, as well as Gullan's book about the fathers of the presidents published in 2004. Smmurphy(Talk) 22:09, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
 * There are exceptions to GNG including 1E of which this is an obvious case. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:17, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't know that I've ever seen exceptions explicitly mentioned in notability policies for people (other than WP:IAR), [1E and NOT are both called "exclusionary criteria" in the BASIC section of N, sorry for the confusion] can you point me to what you mean? I agree there is some nuance when a person is notable for one event, but it isn't clearly spelled out where the line should be. Some examples are given, I can't say for sure if King is more or less notable than the examples at WP:1E or WP:WI1E and we generally do not compare articles at AfD. For some guidance, I might suggest WP:NEVENT, in particular, WP:PERSISTENCE. Gullan's 2004 book was republished last year, so to me, from 1974 (terHorsts book) until now, Ford's birth and the divorce of his biological parents has been considered notable. The divorce itself received significant coverage in papers in 1912 and 1913, and that coverage is mentioned in Gullan and in Cannon and Cannon. The meeting between Ford and King when Ford was in high school has also been a constant feature of stories on the young Ford since 1974. Perhaps Ford's birth and the divorce can be covered in the article on his mother and perhaps the meeting between Ford and King when Ford was in high school is trivial and perhaps the relationship between King Sr. and C. H. King can be covered in the article about King's father. So, you could say that no article is needed about King as most everything can be covered elsewhere and ultimately he is known for one thing. But coverage on him includes a lot more than one event and has been in depth, reliable, and persistent. Smmurphy(Talk) 02:48, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
 * King's biological relationship to Ford is his only claim to fame. His article clearly demonstrates that beyond being what another editor aptly described as a "glorified sperm donor" he was a complete zero. His influence on Ford was, while perhaps not non-existent, it was certainly trivial. And any relevant information is already to be found inGerald Ford. This is an unnecessary content fork about someone who does not meet our notability guidelines per WP:1E unless you believe that notability should be inherited. And if that is the case, this is the wrong forum for that discussion. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:26, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I've reread 1E, and I still don't understand your argument. For instance, it writes: It is important to remember that "notable" is not a synonym for "famous". Someone may have become famous due to one event, but may nevertheless be notable for more than one event. Notability is determined by in depth coverage by multiple reliable sources, and multiple aspects of King's life have that coverage, as would be expected by the son of a multi-millionaire, an individual who beat his wife and got a divorce in the 1910s, and then himself became massively wealthy after his father died. Smmurphy(Talk) 13:39, 22 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete I can see this aggregate, like the last one, never read WP:NOTINHERITED. Listen folks, if you're just going to !vote based on your gut instinct rather than stick to policies, guidelines, and essays then we're just going to be a tyranny of whatever majority shows up. Chris Troutman  ( talk ) 20:45, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete and Redirect. Literally the only thing that gives this guy any notability of any kind is the biological act of fathering a child: he left his wife 16 days after Gerald Ford was born, he never paid any sort of child support, and he (reportedly) met his son ONCE in his entire life. This guy wasn't a father, he was a glorified sperm donor. WP:NOTINHERITED would apply even if he had raised Ford, but his only real connection to Ford is purely genetic. --Calton | Talk 06:43, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete notability isn't inherited, and WP:BIOFAMILY says that family connections alone don't make someone worthy of a page. He has no real claim to significance that doesn't have to do with his son Gerald. Snuggums (talk / edits) 23:13, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment - I've updated the page a bit over the last few days with an eye towards GNG. The main sources I used are a book on the faith of presidents by Holmes (2012) which discusses King's influence on Ford across a couple pages; Cannon (2013), a biography of Ford where King is discussed in depth across 8 pages, and three books about the father's of presidents (Young 1997, Gullan 2004 (republished in 2016) and Wead 2005) which each give King a titled section between one and three pages long. Smmurphy(Talk) 16:04, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep - there is plenty of precedent that the parents of presidents are notable, notwithstanding other rules. Bearian (talk) 04:53, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep I read James Cannon's book about Gerald Ford. Ford's relationship with Leslie Lynch King, Sr. was mentioned in the book. I agree that there is precedent that parents of United States Presidents are notable. Thank you-RFD (talk) 12:02, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep we have an established precedent that parents of Presidents are treated as notable. Sometimes these pushes for deletion become too bound up in a strict adherence to policy, without sufficient consideration of what is best for our readers. Would we be providing them with a better encyclopedia by deleting this article? No, we would not. Presidents of the United States are massively significant historical figures, and their parents play a massively significant role in their lives. Lepricavark (talk) 15:57, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Does this exception to our guidelines and policies apply only to the fathers of American Presidents, or does it also apply to the fathers of all heads of government globally? And does it also extend to mothers? I am starting to smell some of Wikipedia's more pervasive institutional biases here. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:13, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
 * To be brutally honest, American Presidents are more important than many heads of government globally. I think we all know Donald Trump has more power, influence, and significance to our readers than Kersti Kaljulaid. I do believe this is an instance in which an exception to the normal approach is warranted. And in my original comment, I said 'parents', not just 'fathers'. Lepricavark (talk) 16:24, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your interesting and "brutally honest" reply. I am starting to see an RfC on this general topic in the not too distant future. I will wait until after the AfD closes so as not to muddy this particular discussion. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:37, 27 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep - Fathers of Presidents are subjects of numerous books and articles. They clear the hurdle of third party sources. Americasroof (talk) 02:35, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Some are and some are not. But the issue here is WP:1E and whether we are going to extend a blanket exemption to the fathers (and mothers?) of Presidents. And will it be just American Presidents or do other countries get the same exemption from our guidelines. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:05, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 05:35, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep per Smmurphy, Bearian, and Lepricavark's comments in particular; we've had a long precedent for articles on US presidents' parents, and we would not improve the encyclopedia by deleting this article and thereby complicate access to its content. --Arxiloxos (talk) 05:58, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment The article says he only saw his son once, and comments above talk a lot about references discussing his father's influence on him throughout his life. Is having influence sufficient to replace having an actual presence? How much influence did his father have on him? Can you inherit notability from someone because they think about you from time to time? I guess to me it just comes back to the question "what did he do?" Comatmebro  User talk:Comatmebro 06:51, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment. The specific guideline WP:1E does not trump WP:GNG. If King "has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" than he is presumed to be notable. It appears established that he meets that standard. Even so, GNG does not demand that notable topics have their own articles, but in this case all the material in King's article (which is NOT subject to notability rules) is too much to merge into the article on his son. The only real argument I can see in favour of deletion on the basis of policy is through "What Wikipedia is not". For example, it is not a directory and it doesn't do case studies. Srnec (talk) 17:45, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep -- reasonably well sourced and has encyclopedic relevance. The article could stand to have some intricate detail removed, especially if cited to genealogical records. K.e.coffman (talk) 15:52, 5 March 2017 (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.