Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anthony Senecal (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 keep. This was close, befitting of its no consensus outcome last time. The inherited/"not everyone who..." argument from those calling for deletion carries more weight than usual here, as the sources are sparse. Still, there are items of more than passing interest by the media, beyond just the May 2016 items. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 02:08, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Anthony Senecal[edit]

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

Anthony Senecal was apparently Donald Trump's butler, the only reason this is an article at all is due to some one off news coverage in 2016 entitled "10 things you need to know about Trump's racist ex-butler who threatened Obama on Facebook"." I seriously doubt this coverage (repeated by several outlets) is in any way passing our guidelines for reliable sources and notability. And in any event, a single blip of news coverage does not satisfy WP:GNG. Prince of Thieves (talk) 16:55, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There's plenty of sources to expand the article. The sources and his notability would not exist if he had not been a famous man's butler, but so what? lots of sources here and elsewhere - not just due to the Obama statement. SPECIFICO talk 17:48, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Even if you can find two or three substantial independent reliable sources not related to the WP:BLP1E event that would be enough for me, and anyone else. Prince of Thieves (talk) 18:29, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please see the google results per the link in my previous comment. SPECIFICO talk 18:30, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I did and there is nothing, nothing at all, everything is basically attack articles against Trump that occasionally mention him, or copies of that report I mentioned in the nomination. Try "Anthony Senecal" -Donald -Trump on your news search. Prince of Thieves (talk) 18:36, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how all the articles that mention him are attack articles on Trump or that he is what we would mean by "incidental" in meeting GNG. SPECIFICO talk 18:58, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think more to the point is finding one that isn't. Without this one blip of news, he is just one of the ~600 non-notable people Trump has employed as a 'butler'. Prince of Thieves (talk) 19:07, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 20:12, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 20:12, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 20:12, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There are enough RS about him to develop this article and justify keeping this stub, and we do keep stubs. Whether any of them are "attack" articles or not is irrelevant. (Not all of them are.) Sources do not have to be neutral. NPOV policy makes that very clear. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 21:28, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A search [1] shows that most of the coverage is from May 2016, but not all. He was mentioned by the NYT in March 2016 and interviewed by the Today Show in November 2016. He's not the most notable person in the world, but he is a unique personality, associated with the most notable person in the country, and he did make quite a few headlines. I wish we had a little more biographical information. --MelanieN (talk) 01:54, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It is still all from the 2016 presidential election season, there is literally nothing which is not a 'sensationalist' report about Trump that he is mentioned in. I realise the NYT is generally a good source but I think there is a WP:BLP1E/WP:NOTNEWS issue with this article. Prince of Thieves (talk) 13:57, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as WP:NOTNEWS, no one has talked about this guy since 2016. Everyone who knows or as ever worked for Donald Trump does not inherit notability from him.--Rusf10 (talk) 05:42, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's really not helpful to raise straw man arguments. Not "everyone who knows...." has been the subject of several hundred RS articles and mentions in books. SPECIFICO talk 13:53, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The only RS source that is in my opinion even worth considering is the NYT one, but if you have some others then show us the links. Prince of Thieves (talk) 13:58, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'd respectfully suggest that you make additional comments here only when you have direct responses to the specific statements of other editors. We already understand how uncomfortable you are with this article, for whatever reason. I pointed out that there was a straw man argument for deletion. Your reply did not address that concern. SPECIFICO talk 14:37, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am happy to vote keep on my own deletion nomination if you can address the policy concern I have raised. My comment above is specifically in reply to your comment that there is "several hundred RS articles ... books", if this is accurate then show some links and get this dealt with. Note I am particularly interested in what you have found in books, since the main issue is WP:NOTNEWS and WP:BLP1E, so some lasting coverage in sources that aren't news media would negate those policy concerns. Prince of Thieves (talk) 14:46, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note I withdrew this AfD on 5. mars 2018 kl. 17:42 diff but this was reverted due to Rusf10's delete vote. Prince of Thieves (talk) 18:46, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Satisfies the general notability guidelines by virtue of press coverage, and once a person is notable they do not lose that notability with time. While it is true his notability was attained through another person, that disqualifier is negated by the fact that sources exist that are chiefly about Senecal (rather than his famous employer). -- Scjessey (talk) 17:57, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It's true that notability is not temporary, but an individual cannot become notable from a single event per WP:BLP1E. All coverage about this person was in the context of a set of Facebook posts he made. Lonehexagon (talk) 02:25, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per above keep votes. --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 20:14, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The sources about him provide the in-depth, continuing coverage in reliable and verifiable sources needed to establish notability. Alansohn (talk) 21:38, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:NOTNEWS. "Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of persons and events. While news coverage can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics, most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion." There was no continuing coverage for this individual, disqualifying him per WP:BLP1E. All coverage about him was in the context of a single event, and the event itself is not notable enough to have its own entry. Lonehexagon (talk) 02:25, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I looked through his article and noticed several sources listed to the same articles. I combined them, and you can see there are actually only 3 sources: Vanity Fair, Salon and Time. They do talk about Senecal at length, which could be enough to pass WP:GNG for significant coverage in secondary sources if he continued to be discussed. However, I'm voting delete because that seems to be a one-off event per WP:BLP1E, which states a person isn't notable "If reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event" (all three articles are from May 12-16, 2016, a period of 4 days, and discuss him only in context of his posts about Obama) or "If that person otherwise remains, and is likely to remain, a low-profile individual" (that's the case here) or "If the event is not significant or the individual's role was either not substantial or not well documented." I haven't seen anything to indicate that this event is significant. I don't think this would be considered significant enough even for an event article like The Facebook controversy of Trump's butler since it was only a blip in the news for a few days. This seems to be exactly the type of article that WP:BLP1E says shouldn't be on Wikipedia. Lonehexagon (talk) 02:12, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is a clear violation of not news guidelines.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:04, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Generally notable, clear sourcing. MB298 (talk) 04:19, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I agree he only became known because of his association with Trump. I would also dismiss the coverage of about gossipy things he says about Trump (that counts as coverage of Trump, not Senecal). But, there's ample coverage of Senecal's personal beliefs, that are separate from Trump's. Being a former mayor of a small city does help a bit (though it wouldn't be enough by itself). --Rob (talk) 04:33, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There are no sources about his term as mayor at all. Prince of Thieves (talk) 20:14, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well, there is a source to say he was mayor: The New York Times. It doesn't say much about his time as mayor (just a tidbit about a panhandling permit requirement). That's not a lot. By itself, it doesn't prove notability. But, as I said, it adds something.. --Rob (talk) 02:59, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Clearly passes GNG, and is clearly of historical interest. This isn't a reality star or viral star that is what BLP1E is meant for. GuzzyG (talk) 20:07, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am interested to know how this is "of historical interest"? Prince of Thieves (talk) 20:14, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Do you not understand how someone of such close prominence to a president of the united states is going to be studied? Look at Joshua Fry Speed. GuzzyG (talk) 22:25, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No I don't understand the historical significance, he made viral comments about Obama two years ago and no-one has mentioned him since. Prince of Thieves (talk) 22:36, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. None of the sources mention any kind of historical significance or impact from his actions. Lonehexagon (talk) 03:46, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- while notability is not inherited (i.e. from Donald Trump), there's enough sources here to establish stand-alone notability here. An acceptable stub at this point. K.e.coffman (talk) 21:05, 10 March 2018 (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.