Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lloyd Monserratt (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. While there are a lot of poor arguments here, such as the implication that passing mentions count toward notability, the well-reasoned arguments are evenly split, and I do not see consensus emerging based on further participation. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:52, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lloyd Monserratt[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)

2006 AfD closed as no consensus. There's a lot written, but I'm not convinced there's anything notable here. He got a library branch named after him [1], but I'm afraid there is no notability criteria that says anyone who has this is inherently notable. In fact, the LA Times article I just linked suggests that he got the branch as a memorial to someone who died too soon to really hit their stride (become notable). Neither being a leader at UCLA, a director at NALEO, or chief-of-staff for a councilmember meets NPOL. Coverage cited in the article includes a local obituary (permanent deadlink), Daily Bruin obit (student newspaper, dubious reliability, not indicative of notability), an incredibly short LA Times obit, coverage of him as an activist at UCLA, mostly in passing, small local paper, and similar. A really good source is LA Weekly, but to me that still isn't indicative of more than local notability. Admittedly, it's a borderline case. In summary, this seems to be a case of a person who died too soon to become clearly notable. And that's a real shame. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 21:10, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 21:10, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 21:10, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 21:10, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Scouting-related deletion discussions. --evrik ^(talk) 23:59, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This was listed at WP:GAN#HIST back in July in an effort to move the article to Good Article status. --evrik ^(talk) 00:09, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Long standing article (15 years). Subject is notable. Had a wide influence. Lots of press on his work and his death. Only problem is he died in his thirties. --evrik ^(talk) 00:09, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There are stub articles for sci-fi novels with small niche audiences on Wikipedia that have been online for almost as long and haven't received any AFD noms. Why is this singled out? --JohnDBuell (talk) 00:48, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don’t see the connection. You’re welcome to nominate those articles if you have a problem with them. We have numerous articles from the late 2000s that don’t meet our notability standards. I came across this article intending to review it for ga, but I couldn’t exactly see why he was notable. And, with all due respect, the article probably wouldn’t be listed as a ga as it stands, ignoring notability— the daily Bruin is of dubious reliability, there are prose concerns and sourcing. But the first issue is that of notability. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 01:22, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

... so no GA review? ;-) I think you answered the question. Next time, perhaps you can just fail the GA review? --evrik ^(talk) 01:54, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is not a GA requirement. So if a reviewer has doubts about a subjects notability, bringing it here is the correct procedure. AIRcorn (talk) 02:37, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A lot of those mid 00's articles were left there in hopes that someone else would get to them and flesh them out. Didn't ever happen. But my actual point is this - AfD met a real purpose for keeping down impacts on the wiki and db servers in an era where bandwidth was much much lesser and hard drives were smaller and more expensive. I now have fiber at home, 802.11ac, and terabyte hard drives everywhere I look. Now on the one hand, if you're trying to keep up quality, you don't want fancruft, press releases, and such like trying to pass itself off as encyclopedic, but I fail to see where an article that has tried to improve itself is either fannish or a press release. --JohnDBuell (talk) 14:33, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per reasons above. --JohnDBuell (talk) 14:33, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Leaning keep at this stage. Most of the coverage is around his death, but in my opinion there is enough to just pass the GNG. AIRcorn (talk) 02:47, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Which reference(s) discuss the subject in-depth and are also reliable? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:07, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- There is this one [2] AIRcorn (talk) 05:35, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- This one as well: Becerra, Xavier (2003-06-19). "Congressional Tribute in Honor of Mr. Lloyd Monserratt" (PDF). Extensions of Remarks In the House Of Representatives. --evrik ^(talk) 21:51, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - I saw that, but I don't think a congressional tribute establishes notability-- the most relevant discussion I found had a user saying saying: tributes reprinted in the Congressional Record are inserted at the request of the member for that district of the state, and represent nothing but service to constituents.They're not only not sources showing notability , but aren't even reliable as the is no editorial control nor even institutional responsibility. With only one substantial, reliable, independent, and in-depth source, I don't think there's enough for notability. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 22:01, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    - Wait, articles by the New York Times, and the Los Angeles Times, and a Congressional Record mention. How can you say only one substantial, reliable, independent, and in-depth source? I see at least four. --evrik ^(talk) 00:31, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      - Coverage in the NYT and LATimes is not substantial or in-depth, congressional mention is not reliable or independent, as detailed above. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 01:58, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        The coverage was not superficial. Also, the congressional record is a reliable source. There are more sources. --evrik ^(talk) 02:24, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Lean delete This is a really hard case for a notability determination and feels like WP:NOTMEMORIAL on its face. There's coverage of his death because he was chief-of-staff for a councilmember during his unfortunate passing, but the best article is an LA Times article lamenting the fact a library branch was named after him. That being said I could make a good case to !vote keep on some of the obituaries, but I don't think he's notable enough - just demonstrating how grey this one is. I think what makes this so strange is that he would be clearly non-notable had he not passed away. SportingFlyer T·C 21:04, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@SportingFlyer: His involvement with the UCLA incident garnered LA Times and NY Times coverage. His involvement with the Becerra mayoral scandal also gave him press. His biggest problem is he died so young. --evrik ^(talk) 21:28, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In terms of the New York Times article, I strongly contest that a three-sentence article in which he is mentioned once and not in the lede is significant coverage. Sorry. SportingFlyer T·C 21:39, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Just added another LA Times article about the election scandal. --evrik ^(talk) 21:52, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete since the coverage is very thin--yeah, it's the NYT, but we need more than a mention; notability means a subject was discussed at some length and in some depth. "Congressional recognition" or whatever is just a function of who you know, and really means nothing for our purposes. Drmies (talk) 22:26, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Let me count, there are 26 references. Of those ...

LA Times - Six references

NY Times - One reference

Time magazine - One reference

La Opinión - One reference

LA Weekly - Three references

It seems to me that notability is established. --evrik ^(talk) 04:35, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's also been established that just being mentioned in articles doesn't mean WP:GNG is met. The NY Times article, as mentioned, is brief and mentions him once - that clearly doesn't count. The LA Times articles on the student election aren't really about him but more about the controversy generally, and I'm not sure we would keep an article on the event. As I've mentioned above, it's not impossible this gets kept, but it's very, very far from being a clear cut case. SportingFlyer T·C 09:47, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There is a lot of clean up that needs to be done if kept. --Enos733 (talk) 22:23, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Funny you say that, this deletion nomination started by an editor who noticed the article at WP:GAN#HIST. --evrik ^(talk) 04:35, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Hey Evrik. I understand you have put a lot of effort into this article and it is no fun having your work discussed like this. Still if I could offer some advice it would be to back off a bit from responding to every post. I recognise most of the editors who have commented here and they are all experienced and genuine good faith contributors. They would not have made their !votes lightly. The truth is that this person is, as has been said a few times, borderline for meeting our notability requirements. Unless you have a new source that you think will help (at the end of the day a reliable source with significant coverage is what will change peoples minds) or need to answer a direct question you are probably not helping your cause at the moment. AIRcorn (talk) 05:37, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate what you say, but isn't this a discussion? I have gone back several times since this discussion began and added more content and sources. Some of the things said do not capture all the sources, or worse, describe the sources improperly. Truth be told, the LA Weekly articles are probably the most comprehensive. The other articles document specific facts. I said this earlier, but it bothers me that in trying to get this article to GA status, it got nominated for deletion. --evrik ^(talk) 15:03, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Article is well-written and well-referenced, and is about a real person that had significant influence in Los Angeles-area politics. I know when I was a kid I always wanted to know why the park or the library was named after this person or that person and the information was always hard to come by, until WP was founded. When I became an editor there was a huge Eurocentricity problem that has slowly started to become more balanced due to the information of articles like this one about significant people of color. Rockero (talk) 15:54, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - while never an elected official, his longstanding activism and ongoing coverage make him notable. Bearian (talk) 19:09, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment users above have said that he had a "wide influence" and "significant influence in Los Angeles-area politics" but I'm failing to draw the same conclusions from reading the text (notice that this isn't a vote for or against, at least not at the moment). Having memorials and working on the campaigns of various politicians does not make some inherently "influential" – I would need to see a source that explains his "wide/significant" influence directly or says he's "influential", otherwise such claims seem like OR. Aza24 (talk) 20:01, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There is the AP Wire service quote on the Morales campaign, and the quote by Alex Padilla. In this source, Greene, Robert (2003-01-16). "The Silenced Warrior". LA Weekly., it says ..."a key player in the strategic Latino alliance ... of elected officials ... an alternative Los Angeles Latino power base." While not a direct quote, you would have to understand the dynamic between the Torristas and the Molinistas. His influence also came from his work with NALEO. --evrik ^(talk) 04:12, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep With the additional sources now cited, via Newspapers.com, Monserratt's national influence in the Latino community at the time is made clearer. I believe that the article therefore meets GNG, albeit not NPOL. More work is needed for a GA, however. ~~It would be useful to caption the infobox photo with the year it was taken, btw.~~ Of course, one of the challenges in sustaining a 15-yr old article is that some sources no longer appear in web searches, even after trying the wayback machine. JGHowes ^talk 15:30, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Where do you get a "national influence" from the two Newspapers.com articles? One is a quotation in the Tampa Bay Times that doesn't indicate his notability or influence and the other a very short article about the UCLA election that gives him about two sentences of coverage. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 22:24, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that he was national director of constituent services for Latino campaigns around the country and his analysis of the election results was quoted by the national wire services speaks for itself. JGHowes ^talk 22:49, 11 October 2020 (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.