Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Julian W. Lucas

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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 04:02, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Julian W. Lucas[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)

I don't see any evidence this person meets WP:NACTOR or any variants, nor any other criteria. This appears to be a promotional piece sourced to passing mentions, circular refs or sources which otherwise do nothing to establish notability. Might be too soon, but as it's already been draftified and moved by it's creator, I am left with no choice but to send this for a discussion. Praxidicae (talk) 16:11, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 16:21, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 16:21, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 16:21, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 16:21, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I have absolutely no conflict of interest outside of also being part of the disability community. Lucas is a genuine face of models and actors with disabilities. I personally believe having a Wikipedia page is of great importance. This no different from other disabled models such as Jillian Mercado who he has even modeled with for Tommy Hilfiger. This is not intended to promote of any kind and was even supported and helped by readerofthepack an admin. Me and readerofthepack reworked the article to make it Wikipedia ready.

He’s clearly done more then just simply model for one brand. And he’s more then just some social media influencer. I’ve cited multiple news outlets, show reviews, and official YouTube videos with major bands and brands . I'm truly not trying to fight. I'm trying to understand. You’re saying he’s not notable when he’s one of the very few people with a disability to appear in such multimedia and at the level he has reached. Multiple commercials, Marketing campaigns centered around him specifically his name Julian W. Lucas, music videos, live shows, billboard and print along with an instagram profile of over 70,000 followers. To remove a page of a disabled model because he’s not “popular” enough is really heartbreaking to hear.

Please see just one of the examples of a campaign where he was the focal point. This was a major deal at the time as he was the literal face of the billion dollar fitness brand Champion. He didn’t just model. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=WFrLqydiiYM

What I truly think that is getting lost in translation is that the stuff he has done is very notable. Especially within the disability community. You have to understand that disabled people do not get profiled at the same level of other performers. So outside of him becoming the next Brad Pitt. This is almost as good as it gets for disabled people. And I wrote this article because I think it’s so important for people to be able to find him. Learn about what he has done and accomplished, and be able to protect against any false claims, Etc.

Notability is the property of being worthy of notice, having fame, or being considered to be of a high degree of interest, significance, or distinction. Within the disability community alone, along with the LGBTQ community he has demonstrated that. Livewire123 (talk) 20:27, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - was deleted as a promotional article, and then moved to draft so the editor (who has left the lengthy opinion above, wholly not based on any WP policy) could work on it. After a day, the editor moved it back into mainspace. A lot of promotional cruft had been removed, and yet the article is still a puff piece about a minor model. Not enough in-depth coverage from reliable, independent sources to meet WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 02:55, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The piece was moved back after working on it with the admin readerofthepack. It is also sourced by using legitimate news sources and content posted by the official brands, bands, and/or companies he has worked with. He may be considered a “minor” model to the mainstream. But he is very prevalent in the disability and lgbtq community. He has over 70,000 followers on Instagram. Deleting this page is depriving the community from having access to his background and accomplishments. You’re also depriving a disabled performer a Wikipedia page that is clearly not only deserved but also appropriate and important. Name one person who has performed with a world renown comedy theater such as Second City who has a disability. That alone is big enough There’s been about three adult disabled models published in mainstream media in the past year and he is one of them. Multiple times. In various media outlets. He has literally collaborated with one of the the only other disabled models Jillian Mercado. Livewire123 (talk) 03:12, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as WP:TOOSOON. Actors and models, disabled or otherwise, are not automatically entitled to have Wikipedia articles just because they've done stuff — the notability test for people, regardless of their career and regardless of what identity community they might happen to be part of, requires them to receive reliable source coverage about their work. But that's not what the sources on offer here are: six of the ten footnotes are primary sources that do not constitute support for notability, such as YouTube videos and his IMDb page and an entertainment calendar listing, and the other four (Gay Star News, Disability Horizons and Queerty) are blogs, not reliable sources. People do not get a special exemption from having to clear WP:GNG on the sources just because they happen to be members of underrepresented communities — the reception of proper reliable source media coverage is the definition of notability. Wikipedia does not exist as a free publicity platform to help you increase the visibility of aspiring future stars before they have the correct kind of media coverage: making it comes first and then the Wikipedia article follows, not vice versa. Of course, he may come to clear our notability and sourcing standards in the future, so no prejudice against recreation if and when that happens — but "the things this person has done are so personally important to me that I should be allowed to use bad sources to make him notable because good ones don't exist yet" is not a thing we do: the quality and depth and range of the sources you can use to support an article are the notability test. Bearcat (talk) 15:07, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That is absolutely a misrepresentation of the arguments that was proposed. It was never said he should receive an exception because he has a disability and is part of an under represented community. He is notable and he is searched and documented from notable sources. One of the Youtube videos is from the band 30 seconds to mars from Jared Leto, don't paint the picture that it's some random youtube channel. It's literally the band from an Academy Award Winner. The sources you claim to not be reliable is blatant discrimination. Queerty, as per it's own wikipedia page has showing that Queerty get's more then 5 million unique visitors monthly, and Newsweek, another reliable source called Queerty "a leading site for gay issues" in 2010. Queerty has been verified via Instagram, Facebook, and Twitter. Gay Star News another reliable source is verified via Twitter and Facebook. Gay Star News went live with the backing of Goldman Sachs and has received the award for Publication of the Year by Stonewall UK. Stop claiming these sites are not reliable sources when they are some of the leading publications and news outlets in the LGBTQ community. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Livewire123 (talk • contribs) 15:49, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A person is not notable for being in a music video just because you can reference it to a copy of the video — a person is notable for being in a music video only if you can reference it to media coverage about their appearance in a music video. The notability test is not "as long as his work metaverifies its own existence on YouTube", it requires reliable source media outlets to pay independent attention to him and his work by doing journalism about him and his work. "Verification" on social media platforms has exactly jack spit to do with whether something is a reliable source or not, as well — the difference between a reliable source and an unreliable source is a question of whether the outlet is an established media organization or a blog, not of whether it has a green checkmark next to its name on social networking platforms or of who bankrolled it. And incidentally, I'm an openly gay man, so you can take your allegations of anti-gay discrimination and flush them down the toilet of your choice. Bearcat (talk) 16:34, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

First off, you're becoming combative and denigrating, which coming from an Admin, is pretty unprofessional and sets a poor example of behavior proposed by Wikipedia as a community. Second, Where did I say since they have check marks they are considered god's word? Oh I didn't? Ok great. The sources I cited are respected news outlets that conducted independent journalism about him and his work. You're expecting him to be on the front page of the New York Times? Is that the only way notable people can get on Wikipedia? Livewire123 (talk) 17:06, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your comment immediately above mine clearly states that their verification status on Twitter and Facebook and Instagram constitutes proof in and of itself that they're reliable sources. And nobody said that a person has to get onto the front page of The New York Times before they're notable enough for a Wikipedia article, either — the United States alone has thousands upon thousands of perfectly reliable daily newspapers and magazines, and several television network news divisions, and libraries with real books in them...and so do Canada, and Australia, and the United Kingdom, and France, and Germany, and New Zealand, and Sweden, and South Africa, and other world countries. The world is not so starved for reliable sources that if a person hasn't gotten into The New York Times then we have to accept Queerty as the best we can hope for, because there are literally millions of other perfectly reliable sources in the world. Our sources still have to meet our reliable source criteria by being established real media outlets and not just blogs, but there is no rule that The New York Times is somehow the only source we would ever accept. Bearcat (talk) 17:56, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

So he posted on social media that a story will be coming out in the Philadelphia Inquirer. I assume that falls under the reliable source category? If so I or anyone else can successfully cite that source I assume? Livewire123 (talk) 14:15, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That would be a start. It wouldn't get him to the finish line all by itself, however — we would need to see three or four sources of that caliber, not just one, before he could pass WP:GNG on "notable because media coverage exists" grounds. Just keep in mind, please, that this discussion is definitely not a permanent ban on him ever being allowed to have an article — deletion at AFD doesn't necessarily mean "never", and very often just means "not yet". We have had lots of articles that got deleted because the person didn't meet our notability and sourcing requirements at the time, but then sometime later on they accomplished something more significant, and started garnering more real notability-supporting media coverage, than they had at the time of the first discussion — so, because the basis for notability had substantively changed since the first discussion, the article was allowed to be recreated again. There have even been some people for whom I was both the deletion nominator of the first version and the recreator of the second version once the bar had actually been cleared. This is why I invoked WP:TOOSOON in my first comment: it's entirely possible that he'll clear the bar in the future if he keeps doing what he's doing, so an article about him will absolutely be recreatable when that happens. He's just not there yet today, but that doesn't mean he can't still get there if he keeps at it: remember, even Beyoncé was once just an aspiring musician who hadn't accomplished anything noteworthy yet, and wouldn't have qualified for a Wikipedia article yet if we had existed at that time. Bearcat (talk) 15:21, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:BIO. Tenious notability. scope_creep^Talk 22:07, 1 July 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.