Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Trevor Lyman


 * 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. - Philippe 02:39, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Trevor Lyman

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

Fund raiser for Ron Paul who built a blimp and apparently fails to meet WP:MUSIC for his music career. Article is a WP:COATRACK for Ron Paul's presidential run. Relavent information is already in the Ron Paul presidential campaign, 2008 article, and at best, this is a case of WP:BLP1E. Burzmali (talk) 01:03, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Moneybomb. -- brew crewer  (yada, yada) 01:18, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Redirect to moneybomb - per WP:NOT. Only notable for the moneybomb. --Ave Caesar (talk) 01:30, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep of course, lots of editors on this piece have felt he was notable for many reasons, including the blimp's connection with groundbreaking interpretation of FEC rules. There are eight news cites of sighting the blimp alone. Implications that this is a coatrack, that (all) "relavent" info is already elsewhere, or that Lyman is only notable for the moneybomb fall apart upon examination of article(s). Consensus at moneybomb was that this notable info did not belong there. More later. JJB 02:12, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. One of about 10 million political activists on the Internet.  WP:BLP1E.  KleenupKrew (talk) 11:06, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Redirect or Delete: If you strip all the excess puffery and verbiage from the article -- and there is a whopping lot of it -- there's a serious lack of notable content.    RGTraynor  14:06, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Changing to Keep: A great many of those sources are blogs, self-published, represent trivial coverage or quotes or otherwise not reliable sources. A number aren't.  WP:BIO aside, this is a prima facie pass on WP:V.    RGTraynor  15:25, 8 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment: I have notified the other editors of this article at this point. JJB 14:27, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
 * As adverted above, here's the longer argument.
 * Basic notability rule: "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Thirty sources to date.
 * Fully notable per WP:BIO:
 * "A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject."
 * "That person A has a relationship with well-known person B is not a reason for a standalone article on A (unless significant coverage can be found on A)." Emphasis added.
 * "The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory or technique."
 * "The information is so large that this would make the [event] article unwieldy."
 * "Sources have written primarily about the person, and only secondarily about the event."
 * And, I believe, "the person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field."
 * Not excluded by WP:BLP1E or WP:BIO1E (which is not a deletion argument but a merge argument; no merge proposal occurred):
 * Lyman is not someone who "remains of essentially low profile".
 * Sources do not "only cover the person in the context of a particular event"; there were two moneybombs and six weeks of blimp sightings, and now he is getting coverage on his own.
 * We're not dealing with "marginal biographies on people with no independent notability".
 * He is not "associated with only one event, such as for a particular relatively unimportant crime or for standing for governmental election". He came in with a marginally notable music production company, and has now founded Basic Media for a much wider purpose than the election.
 * New notability factors since article was more active (seeking reliable coverage):
 * His new social networking site (yes) is taking off, breakthematrix.com.
 * He has signed with a cable company to start a new channel in the DC area.
 * He is coordinating efforts to plan several new TV and radio shows.
 * Other arguments of deletionists are insufficient:
 * "Fund raiser for Ron Paul who built a blimp" attempts to hint nonnotability but fails.
 * "Fails to meet WP:MUSIC" is a strawman, nobody argues his notability is primarily due to music.
 * See WP:COAT's astronaut example. Article is about Lyman, not a race. WP:COAT is not a deletion argument but a WP:SOFIXIT argument in this case.
 * Campaign article does not and need not mention Music Submit, Televising the Revolution, Free State Project (Operation Live Free or Die), Basic Media (Break the Matrix TV), Renew America Man of the Year, or Golden Dot Award, each of which are separately reportable items.
 * Redirect to moneybomb is even worse, because in addition to above does not mention the many blimp articles.
 * There are not 10 million political internet activists. Certainly not who have raised (ahem) $10 million in two days.
 * Finally, nominator did not make any use of WP:DP alternatives to deletion (editing, tagging, proposing merge, or discussing), but has jumped to AFD out of the blue and out of process. There is more. JJB 15:36, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep I have a feeling those nominating this and those calling for its deletion have not followed Ron Paul's campaign. While Lyman was associated with the money bomb, he was also associated with the Ron Paul Blimp. Both of these things were considered revolutionary for campaign finance and campaign advertising. He has personally been in several interviews and described in detail by multiple articles for his involvement in both the blimp and moneybomb. He's not notable for a single event but at least two events. Also his notability is established by numerous reliable news sources reporting on his relation to those events. Something I didn't know, mainly because I haven't been looking at the Ron Paul stuff lately, is that Lyman and others have set up a media corporation and will actually have a channel in Maryland. Certainly this would add to his notability because it takes his internet activism into real-life activism which was already sort of done with the blimp. I think all these things indicate his notability.--The Devil&#39;s Advocate (talk) 15:47, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I was considering his efforts from November - January as a single event. If you check google news, you'll find the articles from mainstream sources fall only within this time frame, with only the more fringe media outlets carrying more recent stories.  Even then, most of the stories concentrate on the Money bombs themselves or the blimp, not the person behind them.  The "media corporation" is a crystal ball at this point, it has been anything notable yet.  Burzmali (talk) 16:35, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
 * You can't consider them a single event. That's just plain ridiculous. Also it's not a "crystal ball" over whether the idea is notable as several articles have touched on that very matter. Also while many articles deal with the moneybomb or blimp they also often spend a while talking about him and several articles exist where he's the one talked about, not to mention interviews he's had with news organizations. The moneybomb and Ron Paul Blimp are both distinct things and can't be put together. Lyman is seen as the face of these things or the brains behind them. Both of these things are regarded as revolutionary developments. As was pointed out detailed biographical information on Trevor Lyman and others involved in the moneybomb concept was shot down, but Trevor Lyman is clearly notable as an independent person because he is seen as related two distinct and revolutionary concepts.--The Devil&#39;s Advocate (talk) 18:24, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Clearly no one ever thought to raise money on the Internet or advertise on a blimp before. Burzmali (talk) 21:58, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
 * That's obviously not it. You're belittling what was done. Ron Paul raised $20 million in the fourth quarter, more than any other Republican. Half of that came from two days, November 5th and December 16th, moneybombs. They were the largest single-day donations at the time. They are still the largest in pre-primary fundraising. That was done because a large number of people saved up money and donated a lot of it on a single day pre-chosen. That was the revolutionary aspect of it. By doing this Paul was able to get a great deal more exposure than if those had been spread throughout the quarter and netted more donors as well as more coverage which improved his poll standings and brought new donors afterwards. It was also all organized at the grassroots level, not by the Paul campaign. It used a sort of viral advertising campaign on the Internet by spreading YouTube videos and being spread on MySpace and Facebook. It was entirely different from other things in the past. The blimp was financed through a for-profit corporation making an end-run around campaign finance laws. Both of those things were entirely different and this is what makes it notable.--The Devil&#39;s Advocate (talk) 18:57, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, it might make them notable, but notability isn't inherited. In the end, Paul still finished last in all the polls that mattered, so in a historical respect, how notable could the PR flak who came up with them be?  Burzmali (talk) 19:44, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Is that a vote for merge to moneybomb, Ron Paul Blimp, and Basic Media? I'll compromise on that! Also please watch your descriptions of living persons and POV about which polls "mattered". JJB 19:51, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually I would think that since the policy on notability says specifically notability for one event the general conclusion would be a person who is notable for two events would likely be notable, notwithstanding that notability can be established for a single event. Considering Trevor Lyman is central to both of the events and neither event or idea can be put together in one article it seems reasonable to think he would be deserving of his own article.--The Devil&#39;s Advocate (talk) 22:00, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep - he's clearly notable (established in the article), but let's get Paul's picture off the page and avoid the coatrack argument. Frank  |  talk  17:17, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Comments perhaps misplaced at Talk:Trevor Lyman (the first looks like a slight bit of an SPA): JJB 20:34, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I absolutely think that he is notable. He helped organize one of the largest grass roots campaigns in u.s. history as well as the cable news network he is working on. Cheesecake42 (talk) 19:41, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
 * This is foolish. How is Trevor Lyman "not notable"? If so, what is James Blunt notable for? Nothing. This man did something. He deserves to be noticed!! Adufig2000 (talk) 19:55, 8 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep A subject is notable if they're the subject of multiple articles in reliable secondary sources. An article is worthy of inclusion if it passes the "perfect article test," where theoretically enough sources could be found to make it neutral and establish its importance. Looking at the references this article has, it passes both of these criteria in spades. If there weren't any sources, then the nominator may have a point, but their arguments hold no water in light of the extensive citations here. Buspar (talk) 22:46, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
 * keep per KleenupKrew(who would think I'd ever get a chance to say that?) and Buspar. JoshuaZ (talk) 01:52, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep per Frank , the article needs some improvement but establishes notability. Jeodesic (talk) 12:27, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Quit deleting every single God damn article that isn't notable enough to be included in a paper encyclopedia! Less important articles don't magically diminish more important ones! Sheesh! SteveSims (talk) 04:14, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Whoa there, don't have a heart attack. See WP:CIVIL. --Ave Caesar (talk) 20:58, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry. I've been strongly opposed to notability witch hunts recently, since four articles that I've created or heavily edited recently were deleted because they supposedly weren't notable enough or didn't have enough references. I understand that I don't own the articles, but still, people need to chill out with deleting things. Though the free encyclopedia should not become a stubfarm, people need to remember that "less notable" Wikipedia articles don't diminish more notable ones as they would in a paper encyclopedia.. SteveSims (talk) 01:39, 13 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep Wikipedia is NOT Fox News, let's keep it that way.James1906 (talk) 07:27, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep per everything above. --Pwnage8 (talk) 15:54, 13 May 2008 (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.