Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lassiter Holmes

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. Consensus is clearly established, the keep argumet was convincingly refuted, in addition, this is an unsourced BLP article.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:14, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Lassiter Holmes

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

claims to fame are , actor, lawyer, athlete. No indication of any achievement beyond HS --fails WP:ATHLETE. Only claim to fame as to law career is disbarment, and nothing spectacular there --Fails WP:GNG has not won any awards or played any significant roles--fails WP:ACTOR. as the lead is a near dupe of the IMdB ref, I'd say this is completely promotional Gtwfan52 (talk) 22:32, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Gtwfan52 Please see following, there are about 8 reported cases in Westlaw that can not be linked but here are some that are on the web. 1. http://www.leagle.com/xmlResult.aspx?xmldoc=19951486909SW2d577_11418.xml&docbase=CSLWAR2-1986-2006 2. http://caselaw.findlaw.com/tx-court-of-appeals/1383446.html 3. http://caselaw.findlaw.com/tx-court-of-appeals/1384008.html 4. http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=13897537175839247237&hl=en&as_sdt=2&as_vis=1&oi=scholarr

WP:ACTOR The Cloth is listed so it must be a significant role Thank you for your time — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.115.65.183 (talk) 00:02, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The fact that he was a lawyer does not make him notable. If all you had to do to be in Wikipedia is be a lawyer, there wouldn't be any room left for Pokemon characters! And as far as being in The Cloth goes, you really need to read WP:ACTOR. According to ImDb, it has not been released. It has not won any awards, and there is no indication that the part he plays has any significance in the film, even if the film was important, which it isn't. Gtwfan52 (talk) 00:12, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The problem with listing The Cloth is that while the film exists and seems to barely pass notability guidelines, this isn't the type of role that would give notability of this type. By "this type" I mean that this isn't the type of film role that would give notability based upon the one role. The types of roles that do that sort of thing are the ones that are of mammoth proportions, such as Daniel Radcliffe as Harry Potter. The type of role that is so overwhelmingly notable that you get people writing news stories on the role, it gets mentioned often in books, and so on. Just because a film is notable does not mean that every role in it is so notable that it merits an article for the actor or actress playing them. Also, just working as a lawyer on cases is not enough. If the cases received extensive coverage in reliable sources (by this I mean newspapers, tv shows, and scholarly journals rather than primary sources such as court documents or links to non-reliable sources such as blogs and podcast shows) and those sources discussed Lassiter, then that would count. I'm not as familiar with high school and college football, but I know that you'd have to show that he's received coverage. Just being something doesn't give notability. I'll see what I can find, but so far this isn't enough. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 03:32, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Also if you would listen to this link beginning at 9:40 your deletion was not proper http://vasthead.com/RA/KODA/KODA_1964_10_11.mp3

Furter the NTSB report is more than sufficient http://www.ntsb.gov/aviationquery/brief.aspx?ev_id=80888&key=0 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.115.65.183 (talk) 00:34, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:19, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:19, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:19, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:20, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:20, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and then redirect to The Cloth. Holmes just isn't that notable of a person. I found one local source that commented upon him being in the movie and a brief mention of him getting taken to court and disbarred for mail fraud, but none of this is enough to show notability for him. None of the sources on the article show notability either. The high school paper is considered primary and the local newspaper review of him performing in a play isn't really enough to show that the performance gives notability. Now if Holmes had received coverage in say, New York, that would count towards notability. Local reviews are pretty routine. His high school records seem to have only been notable to the school and his association with other people doesn't give any notability either. Notability is WP:NOTINHERITED by Holmes having known someone notable. Training a person for a pageant is not enough to give notability unless his actions received coverage in reliable sources- which it didn't. Nor are routine listings of him having been a lawyer enough to show notability either. Nobody is questioning whether or not he's been a lawyer, just his notability per Wikipedia's guidelines. I've actually tagged this for a speedy delete as sheer promotion. Even without the promotion, Holmes is not notable enough for his own page. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 03:55, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The individual who is attacking this page deleted the following references without even checking them and now has posted for deletion and now imediate deletion http://vasthead.com/RA/KODA/KODA_1964_10_11.mp3 @9:41 No You dont have to listen to the entire thing go to 9:40 http://vasthead.com/Radio/news.html page about half way down it says quote A MONTH IN THE LIFE OF KODA KODA, Houston, October & November, 1964 Remastered May 20, 2008. This stop and go recording covers about a month in the history of KODA and KODA-FM, running from early October to early November, 1964. I recorded each of these items myself. You will find the crash of the KODAbird of particular interest. Carried by KODA-AM, the October 12 recordings feature Ted Carr broadcasting from the helicopter. Carr and Don Leblanc joke about buses. Carr jokes about flying. Carr jokes about Columbus Day. You hear the Dreamliner bus jingle. Later, you hear KXYZ cover the October 14 KODAbird crash and somber announcements on KODA and KODA-FM. At the time, Joe Coffer was news director, and Gene Arnold did both news and sports. In a 2008 email to this web site, Gene Arnold wrote: I was on the air that fateful morning the KODABIRD went down. One of our listeners called to tell us what had happened. We kept trying to contact Ted Carr for his next report and couldn't reach him. We didn't think too much about it at the time. We thought we would hear from him as soon as he was ready to give the next traffic update. When we found out they had gone down, Joe and I immediately drove to the location where the chopper went down. It was a horrifying scene and I almost threw up. Ted and the pilot were still strapped inside the remains of the KODABIRD, but their bodies were burned beyond recognition. That is a sight that remains with me to this day.

These references were never checked. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.115.65.183 (talk) 04:30, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Walter Winchell could have been standing there and written a Pulitzer Prize winning article on the crash, and it would still have no bearing on the outcome of this debate. I generally don't waste my time listening to 45 min long audio sources from unreliable websites that are on the article to prove something that has absolutely no bearing on the notability of the article. So sorry if that somehow makes you feel slighted, IP 70... Gtwfan52 (talk) 05:05, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom Jimfbleak - talk to me? 05:21, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - lack of notability at this time. --bonadea contributions talk 10:01, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not a notable subject (please keep WP:NOTINHERITED in mind). 1292simon (talk) 10:46, 23 May 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.