Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anthony J. Motley (2nd nomination)

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 no consensus. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 12:26, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Anthony J. Motley[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

The only reliable source supporting this is a WaPo article I can’t read. A search produced nothing else but mirrors of Wikipedia and a blog. Mccapra (talk) 04:45, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 04:45, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 04:45, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete 1 source is not enough to show notability. Beyond that, it is unclear if the WaPo source covers Motley in enough detail to add towards notability. Lastly, since he is from Washington, being covered by the local paper, even if it is a major paper, is not a sign of notability, at least not when it produces just one article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 07:02, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - The current article is rather misleading as a biography of this man, completely omitting his political influence and corruption charges. The earlier AfD produced a number of articles from Washington City Paper not mentioned here, including [1] [2] and [3]. All of those have "blog" in the URL, so I'm inclined to believe they didn't go through full editorial review. However this WaPo article unambiguously constitutes significant coverage. Finding a second source is harder, but I think this Afro article might qualify, and my guess is that there's more out there.

I could still see an argument for deletion based on WP:BLP1E with a redirect to something like Marion_Barry#Conflict_of_interest:_personal_benefit_from_contract_to_girlfriend, but he's not mentioned there, and the whole saga gets pretty messy pretty quick. I provisionally lean towards keep (and rewrite) unless someone points out a better solution.

Also, since it seems others have hit their free article limit on WaPo, the currently cited article is not nearly enough to support inclusion itself. Here is its full and only reference to Motley: The effort also grew out of the JOBS Coalition, led by the Rev. Anthony J. Motley, which challenged industry leaders such as John McMahon, chairman of Miller & Long and president of the foundation, to hire more District graduates for local jobs. MarginalCost (talk) 11:35, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost (talk) 11:37, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost (talk) 11:37, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, unless the article sees significant improvement. Nothing stated here is "inherently" notable for the purposes of guaranteeing him a Wikipedia article, but the sources proffered so far in this discussion just make him a WP:BLP1E. Sure, it's possible that there might be more meat here, but that needs to be shown and not merely speculated about before it would actually change anything. We need more than just two pieces of local coverage to deem a person as clearing WP:GNG in lieu of having to clear a subject-specific inclusion standard, because GNG is not just "count the footnotes and keep anything that reaches two" — it does also consider factors like the depth of how substantively any given source is or isn't about him, the geographic range of how widely the coverage is spreading, and the context of what he's getting covered for. As I've often pointed out, if two pieces of local coverage were all it took to deem a person "notable just because media coverage exists" and thereby exempt them from having to be notable for any specific reason, then we would have to keep an article about my mother's former neighbour who got into the local media several years ago for finding a pig in her yard. Bearcat (talk) 15:11, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your point is generally well-taken, though I think there's an obvious difference between human-interest stories of stray pigs and documented corruption scandals, which this article's inclusion would cause no danger of blurring. As I mentioned above, I'm sympathetic to arguments on BLP1E and WP:1E grounds, but that usually presumes having an article on the event in question. While I think some article like Marion Barry bribery scandal could be written, at the moment most information is contained in the article for Barry himself. I originally thought it would be an awkward fit to add Motley in to Barry's article, but I'm now coming around to thinking it wouldn't be that hard to add a single line and redirect Motley there.

You're also right that more sources need to be shown before it changes anything; my previous comment that's there's more out there was more an expression of intent to look more later than an argument itself. And as I've looked further, I've come up short, with the possible exception of The Chronicle of Philanthropy whose coverage is probably just WP:ROUTINE. I'm standing by my original weak keep though. MarginalCost (talk) 05:35, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. In addition to the sources found above, I found additional sources with coverage in my university library's database. There were 61 entries, and I didn't take time to read all of them. Here are first ones given in order as they were presented in my library search. All of these articles are either about Motley or contain interviews with Motley or, in one instance, were written by Motley:

"Scheduling Conflict Causes Bruised Feelings", Salmon, Barrington, Washington Informer, Mar 19-Mar 25, 2015, Vol.50(23), p.23
"Leaders To Scrutinize Lending Practices For Blacks: Union Temple Launches Project Uhamaa", Washington Informer, Sep 22, 1993, Vol.29(47), p.22
"Mayoral Candidates to Address Workforce Development Strategies", Tesfamariam, Rahiel, Washington Informer, Nov 24-Nov 30, 2005, Vol.42(7), p.4
"Good Friday March to Stop 'Death Nails'", Afro - American Red Star, Mar 30-Apr 5, 2013, Vol.121(34), p.B.2
"Mother's Tea Unites Victims' Families, Community", Collins, Sam, Washington Informer, Oct 9-Oct 15, 2014, Vol.49(52), p.5,9
"Despite Debt-Ceiling Deal, Americans Not Out of Danger", Salmon, Barrington, Washington Informer, Aug 4-Aug 10, 2011, Vol.46(91), p.1,8
"An Open Letter to My Friend William Lockridge", Motley, Anthony, Washington Informer, Jan 27-Feb 2, 2011, Vol.46(65), p.19,30 (primary source)
"Wells' Possible Mayoral Run Has D.C. Residents Talking", Wright, James, Washington Informer, Jul 12-Jul 18, 2012, Vol.47(38), p.12
Green-Collar Jobs Give Hope to Thousands of Youth, and Ex-Offenders, Humphries, Nydria, Washington Informer, Mar 13-Mar 19, 2008, Vol.44(19), p.6
"Still Wanted -- Answers To Unsolved Murders In D.C.", Peabody, Alvin, Washington Informer, Jun 5, 1998, Vol.34(32), p.1
"Forgive Past Transgressions; Mayor Williams Pleads on Behalf of Ex-Offenders", Doku, Sam, Washington Informer, Jul 16, 2003, Vol.39(39), p.1
"Church Supports Jobs For Ex-Offenders", Wamble, Marvin, Washington Informer, Jul 10, 2002, Vol.39(40), p.14
"Forum on Creating Job and Training Opportunities for Returning Ex- Offenders to Be Hosted by JOBS Coalition", PR Newswire, Dec 10, 2003, p.14meter4 (talk) 18:44, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
"STADIUM DEBATE: Will new facility benefit taxpayers? Participants hear divergent views on who will benefit most", Stafford, Leon, The Atlanta Journal-Constitution (Atlanta, GA), Nov 7, 2012, p.A19
"ANC Silver Scores Victory in Fight over Parking Lot", Wright, James, Washington Informer, Apr 15-Apr 21, 2010, Vol.46(26), p.11
"Chris Barry Set for Jail; Motley Gets Probation", Wright, James, Afro - American Red Star, Jul 4-Jul 10, 2015, Vol.123(48), p.D.1
"Should East of the River Be Called East End?", Adkins, Lenore, Afro - American Red Star, Jun 8-Jun 14, 2019, Vol.127(44), p.B2
"Peaceoholics Begin Work at Anacostia", Van Lowe, Carlton, Washington Informer, Mar 29-Apr 4, 2007, Vol.43(21), p.5
"PUBLIC SAFETY: Citizen board under scrutiny: Police resistance, internal politics put effectiveness in doubt.(Metro News)", Cook, Rhonda, The Atlanta Journal-Constitution, (Atlanta, GA), May 27, 2012, p.B1
"Ground Is Broken for Senior Wellness Center in Ward 8", Barnes, D, Washington Informer, Oct 20, 1999, Vol.35(50), p.1

Passes WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV.4meter4 (talk) 18:44, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Washington Informer and the Afro-American Red Star are both small community weeklies in Washington DC, covering him in purely local-interest contexts, so they are not sources that can tip the GNG scales all by themselves if there's no strong evidence of any substantial coverage beyond just his own local media market. Press releases are not notability-supporting sources, so the PR Newswire hit doesn't count for anything at all — and he's not the subject of the Atlanta Journal Constitution hits, but merely gets glancingly namechecked in coverage about other things or people. So no, none of these hits make the difference. GNG is not just a matter of counting up the media hits and keeping anything that surpasses an arbitrary number; it also tests for the depth of how substantively any given source is or isn't about him, the geographic range of where the coverage is coming from, and the context of what the person is getting covered for. A person can have 1,000 media hits and still fail GNG if those hits still fail one or more of those other tests; for example, a lot of local figures (city councillors, musicians who play the local pub on Friday night but have never accomplished anything that would pass NMUSIC, winners of local poetry contests, etc.) are not automatically notable just because they have some local media coverage in their own city. Bearcat (talk) 16:29, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:15, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:06, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Passes WP:SIGCOV per 4meter4 rationales. Also per WP:GNG. When kept the article needs some expansion though.BabbaQ (talk) 22:20, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG. Kutyava (talk) 03:17, 13 October 2019 (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.