Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bill Luckett (businessman)

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. J04n(talk page) 17:44, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bill Luckett (businessman)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable local businessman; failed candidate and now a candidate again. This one just doesn't pass WP:POLITICIAN or any other test of notability I can think of. Orange Mike | Talk 02:04, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — this subject fails WP:42 as to substantial coverage. I'm discounting the exceedingly and apparently non-print and local coverage. JFHJr (㊟) 03:58, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article got through WP:AFC at the end of 2010, which means that it would have needed to have got past policy then.--Laun chba ller 09:07, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- reply - no, it means that one person doing review in the early days of AFC let it pass, in good faith. --Orange Mike | Talk 17:28, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Northamerica1000^(talk) 09:24, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mississippi-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:26, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:26, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:26, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Mississippi gubernatorial election, 2011. Losing candidates generally do not pass WP:POLITICIAN and it makes sense to redirect to the election page. Enos733 (talk) 04:05, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Mississippi gubernatorial election, 2011, subject appears to have received significant coverage from multiple non-primary reliable sources, therefore the subject passes WP:GNG; however, the vast majority of the significant coverage is related to one event, the subject of the article Mississippi gubernatorial election, 2011. As a candidate who lost and has not received significant coverage outside of the election the subject fails WP:POLITICIAN. Therefore, the subject of this AfD falls under WP:BLP1E, as such the common outcome when this is the case is to redirect the subject to the event, in this case an election.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 15:12, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Change from Redirect to Mississippi gubernatorial election, 2011, does not pass WP:POLITICIAN as per valid point made by DGG re: GNG. -AuthorAuthor (talk) 18:01, 12 March 2013 (UTC) -AuthorAuthor (talk) 04:55, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The GNG is always an option--saying that it is only with respect to an election makes it almost impossible for someone running for office to be notable, regardless of press coverage. WP:POLITICIAN has always had the exception that sufficient substantial sources overcomes any one-event considerations--as does sufficient coverage for anything. Running as a major party office for governor is significant, if there is enough RSs that cover it. DGG ( talk ) 03:49, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The subject did not win the Party's nomination for Governor in 2011. Enos733 (talk) 08:44, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ooops. I knew I should have checked. But that does not affect the GNG argument. It still supersedes any restriction at WP:Politican when it can be found to apply DGG ( talk ) 17:53, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 16:11, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - A really obnoxious gutting done to this piece which is now a pretty worthless stub. THIS counts towards GNG, for sure, it is beyond typical politician coverage. With due respect to the nominator, I'm gonna weigh in tentatively on the Keep side here... Carrite (talk) 17:19, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

THIS is campaign-related coverage, yes, but it includes good biographical material for a reexpansion of this piece if this ends a Keep. Carrite (talk) 17:24, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

THIS from the Jackson Free Press indicates that he owns his blues club in partnership with Mississippi Delta native Morgan Freeman. Carrite (talk) 17:26, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

More, THIS from the Memphis Daily News (not campaign related) details then end of their 10 year partnership as owners of a Clarksdale eatery. Carrite (talk) 17:28, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And HERE is more coverage from the Memphis Daily News with a photo of attorney Luckett and actor Freeman on the groundbreaking of their Clarksdale blues club. Carrite (talk) 17:31, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Yeah, this is a GNG keep. Subject is covered substantially in multiple pieces of independently published news coverage. Carrite (talk) 17:34, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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.