Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Scott Lamb (lawyer)


 * 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; 04:26, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Scott Lamb (lawyer)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Poorly referenced WP:BLP of a person notable primarily as the organizational president, but not the public leader, of a political party. This is a role that could potentially get him into Wikipedia if he could be sourced over WP:GNG for it, but not one that hands him an automatic inclusion freebie just for existing if the sourcing isn't up to snuff -- but the only source here is his "staff" profile on the political party's own self-published website about itself, which is not a GNG-assisting or notability-conferring source. So no prejudice against recreation in the future if somebody can do better than this, but nothing here is good enough as written to get him in the door. Bearcat (talk) 23:35, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 23:41, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 23:41, 8 May 2018 (UTC)


 * I added and sourced a very basic bio. He's not a politician, he's the Party President.  His job as a corporate attorney is more or less to make sure that the work he does draws very little press attention, and that's still his job as Party President.  Still, he's in the news regularly, talking up candidates, managing political scandals.  He's an important behind-the-scenes player in national politics.   I note that Nom tagged the article for improvement when he started the AfD.  I suggest that we close this as "no consensus" and leave it open, in the hope that some devoted Conservative (or ideological opponent) will wade through the sources and create a good article.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:36, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Party president is not a role that exempts a person from having to clear WP:GNG. It's a role that can get a person an article if the sourcing for it is solid, but not one that entitles them to have an article if the sourcing is junk. Bearcat (talk) 15:05, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Weak Keep (for now)- the national president of a major political party should be notable enough, but I would like to see more indepth coverage. Another source: (EDIT:my bad, that's the same one, but at least its not paywalled)--Rusf10 (talk) 17:57, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   20:16, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep - a national leader of a major party in a major democracy is probably notable per WP:POLITICIAN. Bearian (talk) 21:22, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Sure, and their sourceability, or lack thereof, is what the probability hinges on. Bearcat (talk) 18:13, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 07:43, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep so obviously notable under even the most narrow interpretation of WP:GNG. I'm sure there's more out there than what appears in the article, WP:HEY.Bangabandhu (talk) 07:35, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep per argument above and new source added by User:JLJ001.E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:07, 29 May 2018 (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.