Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Steve Lightfoot


 * 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. Insufficient good references for notability DGG (talk) 03:17, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Steve Lightfoot

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


 * Delete. Non-notable nutter, fails WP:AUTHOR. Also fails WP:BIO as there is no substantial coverage in multiple reliable independent sources. WWGB (talk) 02:15, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions.  —WWGB (talk) 02:22, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Conspiracy theories-related deletion discussions.  —WWGB (talk) 02:22, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. I'll elaborate more if needed but this should hopefully be an open-and-shut case.--Sandor Clegane (talk) 03:43, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - I created this article, but I think it's important to say why I think it should be kept in Wikipedia. Firstly, Steve Lightfoot has been around for a long time - his original pamphlet about King being behind Lennon's murder was published in 1990, and still remains read today. His numberous publicity stunts to raise awareness of his beliefs have been published in both local and national newspapers (see references in the article), and Stephen King has mentioned Lightfoot in more than one interview. I am aware that there are issues behind the fact that Lightfoot's views are unlikely to be true, and do not seem to be based in any reliable evidence, but surely the same applies for similar people such as David Icke, etc...  I think there is certainly enough press coverage to support this article, even if everything on lennonmurdertruth.com is removed (which is mostly used for early biographical details, such as his golf career.) Also, his comments in the press regarding River Phoenix suggest that he is not simply notable for one event, but several. A caveat on the article confirming that it is likely that Lightfoot's views are ...   unconventional, at least, would be appropriate, as it would be problematic to state as fact that King killed Lennon (although Lightfoot does), and it's important to point out that these are Lightfoot's views, rather than consensus. I don't think, however, this makes him non-notable - simply because of his unconventional views. Well, that's my view, anyway. I hope this discussion goes well. Thalweg &amp; Nimbus (talk) 10:25, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment Also, his comments in the press regarding River Phoenix suggest that he is not simply notable for one event, but several.
 * A Google search for "Steve Lightfoot" and "River Phoenix" only gets six hits. One of them is this AFD. The rest mention the two but not in the same sentence.--Sandor Clegane (talk) 12:12, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment How about this? Thalweg &amp; Nimbus (talk) 12:31, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment Okay, one fleeting reference in an article that just mentions Lightfoot. That doesn't back up your theory that he is notable for several events.--Sandor Clegane (talk) 13:06, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Steady on, captain! At least I looked at the "six hits". And I think it's quite clear in the article that Lightfoot, in his van, shows up to assert his theories about River Phoenix's death. I don't think I was ever suggesting that it should form a major part of his biography, but it's certainly another example of Lightfoot making the press. If he is notable, and I believe he is, then it is first and foremost as an activist and theorist about the causes of John Lennon's death and Stephen King's role therein. I'd like to think that I've made that clear above - to to re-iterate: most of the time Lightfoot makes the press is during various of his publicity stunts to raise the awareness of his cause. Thalweg &amp; Nimbus (talk) 13:13, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I did look at all the links--I missed yours because he's simply referred to as "Phoenix" instead of "River Phoenix". Its such a brief reference, and I was looking for something bigger since you claimed that Lightfoot was notable for it.--Sandor Clegane (talk) 13:50, 14 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete largely per nom. The fact that his name has been mentioned a few times in media in passing does not make him notable - for that he and his theories would have to have been discussed by mainstream news, not just mentioned. keɪɑtɪk flʌfi (talk) 12:21, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. Totally non-notable! Nothing more than one of societies "special people" spouting WP:FRINGE conspiracy theories. Niteshift36 (talk) 16:40, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per others. Doctorfluffy (wanna get fluffed?) 18:45, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. I have looked at every one of the references given in the article. The first begins with the words "Hi. My name is Steve Lightfoot": scarcely independent. Most of the others give single sentence mention: typical is Santa Rosa City Council minutes, which says "Steve Lightfoot spoke of his website on the John Lennon murder", and that is all. Again, Stephen King in an interview says: "Though there's a guy out in California, Steven lightfoot, who believes that me and Ronald Reagan conspired to kill John lennon", and again that is all. The longest mention is in a report relating to a Sarasota City Commission meeting, which says "During public comment, a man with signs who identified himself as Steve Lightfoot, took a seat in front of commissioners saying he wanted to expose the truth. He then went on to allege that part-time Casey Key resident and author Stephen King was the person that killed John Lennon." To claim that there is "substantial" coverage, as required by Notability would be absurd.


 * The arguments put forward above by the author of the article do not relate much or at all to Wikipedia policy. For example "Steve Lightfoot has been around for a long time": so has my grandfather. And then "His numberous [sic] publicity stunts to raise awareness of his beliefs have been published in both local and national newspapers": yes, but, even if the coverage were substantial (which it isn't), saying that making publicity stunts give someone a right to a WP article makes no sense: that would be tantamount to allowing WP to publish self-promotion. In short, none of this is about notability in Wikipedia's sense. JamesBWatson (talk) 19:55, 14 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep - I found 25 Google News hits from all across the US. I also found mentions of him in four books, such as here and here. He's a wack job, but a fairly well-documented one. Side note: I live in Lightfoot's hometown, so I've seen his van a few times. However, I've never met him, and to the best of my knowledge, we have no mutual acquaintances. - Dori ❦ (Talk ❖ Contribs ❖ Review) ❦ 01:32, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment. Did you see that many of those Google News hits are repeats of the same source article, beginning with either "A man who claims ..." or "Now, a California man is parked downtown ..."? When you omit copies, there are many less unique hits. As for the books and journals, the reference to Lightfoot is rarely more than a one-liner. WWGB (talk) 02:06, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Reply: If I count all the duplicate news stories individually, I get 73 total. Without dupes, Google counts it as 25. If I'm more persnickity, we're left with about 15 or so—which is still more than anyone else had previously found (because I included relevant hits for "Steven Lightfoot"). I've seen people with considerably fewer news hits be kept. And that's not even counting the brief blurbs on blogs like National Review's Corner (here) to Boing Boing (here). Dori ❦ (Talk ❖ Contribs ❖ Review) ❦ 04:36, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Noted that both of those refs come from the same source ("Swallowing the Camel") and contain 7 relevant words. WP:NOTABILITY states "significant coverage is more than a trivial mention." WWGB (talk) 05:15, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
 * So what if there are quite a few news hits? If they are only trivial mentions they do not constitute substantial coverage. Also an editor wanting to keep (sic) has pointed out that much of what news mention there is comes as a result of "publicity stunts". (In fact for someone who has put so much effort into publicity stunts to finish up with about 15 or 25 independent hits is not very impressive.) We also have "I've seen people with considerably fewer news hits be kept." Yes, but that is irrelevant: there may have been many other factors, such as more substantial news items, or other sources apart from news coverage. Then we have "And that's not even counting the brief blurbs on blogs... ". A blog is not a reliable source: anyone can write anything in a blog. In short, Dori's claims do not relate to Wikipedia's notability standards. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:44, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete I've participated in two AFD discussions whose result were just barely a keep. Those people had several published books that were in the top 10 of their amazon category and whose names turned up tens of thousands of Google hits.  This doesn't even come close.  Sorry.  --Mbilitatu (talk) 12:03, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete fails WP:AUTHOR and the WP:GNG. Verbal chat  19:23, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
 * STRONG KEEP - This is a relevant article providing valuable added information to Wikipedia. Please stop the overzealous policing and deletion of Wikipedia articles. Furthermore, this meets each of Wikipedia's Five Pillars which explicitly states they are the only five rules, rendering all other arguments irrelevant.Aliveatoms (talk) 00:54, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment. made the identical recommendation on six AfDs in quick succession. —C.Fred (talk) 01:03, 19 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete. As noted above, he has not gotten significant coverage in any of the reliable sources cited in the article. Fails both specific and general notability guidelines. —C.Fred (talk) 01:17, 19 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.