Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Malcolm Lafargue


 * 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. § FreeRangeFrog croak 06:33, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Malcolm Lafargue

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Only claim to fame is being an assistant US attorney for west Louisiana and a failed Senate candidate; does not meet WP:NPOL or WP:GNG (the only non-trivial coverage is a local obituary). OhNo itsJamie Talk 16:24, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:55, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:55, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:55, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Keep Wrong, if you had read the full article, you would see that he prosecuted Louisiana Hayride as an asst. U.S. attorney but was U.S. attorney from 1941 to 1950. Billy Hathorn (talk) 19:19, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment WP:NPOL says nothing about US Attorneys, and lacking WP:GNG coverage, there isn't anything in this article that meets notability guidelines. OhNo itsJamie Talk 19:43, 12 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Articles for deletion/Log/2015 February 12.  —cyberbot I   Talk to my owner :Online 23:03, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment. There are overt two hundred U.S. attorneys with Wikipedia articles; some did become judges too. An exact accounting would take a while. Mr. Lafargue's article is consistent with many of the other U.S. attorney articles.Billy Hathorn (talk) 00:48, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment I challenge you to find articles in the US Attorney category where that was their only claim to fame. Furthermore, you are willfully ignoring WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS as an AfD argument over and over again. OhNo itsJamie  Talk 02:30, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Rod J. Rosenstein (MD) Joyce White Vance (AL) Alice Martin (AL) W. H. H. Clayton (AR) Colm Connolly (DE) Florence T. Nakakuni (HI) Wendy J. Olson (ID) Michael C. Ormsby (WA) Johnny Sutton (TX) (also college baseball) David N. Kelley (NY)_Billy Hathorn (talk) 04:17, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Here's the list: Thomas M. DiBiagio of Maryland
 * Comment I would disagree that this list is what it purports to be - Clayton was a federal judge and DiBiagio was caught in the Dismissal of U.S. attorneys controversy. However, the question we have with this subject is not that it is a quality, well sourced article but that they rely primarily on local sources on subjects that would not normally meet WP:POLITICIAN. WP:NEWSORG states "News reporting from less-established outlets is generally considered less reliable for statements of fact." I think many commenters question the reliance of local sources since many local papers frequently reprint press releases without any fact-checking or the coverage is WP:ROUTINE. The other question is whether the articles are about the subject or whether they cover the subject in some depth. I think the burden is on the creator of the page to ultimately show there "is something unusual about the subject, or something that may be encyclopedic" (for an international audience) WP:MILL. My sense, overall, is that Wikipedia may not be the appropriate place for these articles that have come up for AfD the past few weeks. Instead, they appear to be painting a picture of Louisiana politics in the 1930s that may be missing from our traditional understanding of the dominance of Huey Long and his machine. The problem is that each individual piece may not meet WP:GNG but the larger project has tremendous value. Enos733 (talk) 08:29, 13 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Correction I rechecked, and W. H. H. Clayton was not a federal judge but the U.S. attorney for Judge Isaac Parker in Fort Smith, Arkansas.Billy Hathorn (talk) 15:46, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
 * (1) WP:MILL is an essay and it happens to be a load of rubbish that makes no sense at all and has nothing to do with our actual notability criteria. There is no burden of proof on the page creator. AfD has a presumption against deletion, and if there is a burden of proof, NRVE and BEFORE appear to place it on those arguing for deletion, by requiring them to conduct a thorough search for sources. (2) I doubt that generalisations about what many local papers do is relevant. I am more interested in what the particular paper in question actually does. James500 (talk) 16:11, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep per WP:BASIC. There is significant coverage about him in multiple reliable sources with regard to both his role as the federal prosecutor in the Minden lynching trial of 1947 and his run for Senator. See, e.g., and . 24.151.10.165 (talk) 19:26, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I added the three other sources you found.Billy Hathorn (talk) 20:21, 14 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep – Meets WP:BASIC, albeit on the weakish side. Source examples include (scroll down to the OCR Text box and read within),, , , , ,  (short paragraph),  (very short paragraph),  (very short paragraph). N ORTH A MERICA 1000 21:56, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment. Thanks for the additional sources; the material has been added to the article. Billy Hathorn (talk) 21:14, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep US Federal District Attorneys are default notable. This is a major appointment with lots of influence and power. Plus Lafargue's role in investigations as an assistant USDA would probably also make him notable. The District attorney is more notable than district judges, since there is one attorney and multiple judges. We don't have articles on most USDAs, but that lack in coverage means we need more aritcles, not that we should delete the ones we have.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:28, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep - Passes GNG. Carrite (talk) 12:56, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep He meets the GNG based on the sources. It doesn't matter that he does not have inherent notability based on the office he held. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 16:39, 17 February 2015 (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.