Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Edward Longley

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. Cirt (talk) 12:51, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Edward Longley[edit]

Does not appear to currently meet WP:N as required for any WP:BLP subjects. rootology/equality 17:56, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No significant coverage whatsoever in reliable sources. The references provided in the article are either not independent or just passing mentions (Classmates.com, really?). Could almost be speedied, since there is hardly any assertion of notability in the article. SheepNotGoats (Talk) 18:49, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I'd just as soon it not be speedied, given the factors surrounding it's creation, and request no admin close this early unless it's some monstrous deluge of policy-based deletes (which paid editing is NOT one, no matter what a handful of users here believe). The last time this sort of thing came up it was handled in as about of a clusterfrakked up manner as is realistically possible. I won't allow a repeat. rootology/equality 18:53, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I hear you. I have struggled with meeting the notability requirement myself and have found it difficult. There are mentions of Mr. Longley in The Real Deal online magazine and New York Times, but they have been archived and I haven't been able to retrieve the archives or as of yet. Petrosianii (talk) 19:25, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No reliable sources cited in article, and I could not find any on Google News, Books or Scholar. No indication in the article or from looking through Google results that he is more notable than any other real estate investor. Just being one is not notable. --Apoc2400 (talk) 19:37, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have contacted the editors of The Real Deal magazine and they are digging into the archives for Longley mentions. This is a reliable secondary source by Wikipedia standards. Will this satisfy your requirement? Petrosianii (talk) 19:39, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't mean to argue. Really, I don't. I truly admire your editorial standards and everything Wikipedia stands for. But, if you would please show me in the Notability clause where it states that the subject must be "more notable" than another real estate investor, I would appreciate it. Because, I don't see that. What it says is that the subject is notability if there are a "significant" number od reliable secondary sources mentioning him. What exactly determines significant, I suppose, would be up for debate. However, obviously 100 mentions would be significant, whereas two would probably not be. But I don't see anywhere where it states that notability is based on being "more notable" than some one else in the same industry or profession? Petrosianii (talk) 20:00, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Petroiannii, there is no such requirement; I believe that was just an analogy. The requirements for notability for "living people" (WP:BLP's) are really actually simple: do they meet this notability standard, here, on their own? If so, the next question is, are they what we call a WP:BLP1E, a living person really only notable for one event? This is typically like a criminal, or victim, for example. Unless the that one event is so monumentally famous or infamous, they rarely are kept. A good example would be that confessed rapist in Germany that imprisoned his daughter (I forget his name)--only famous for that. Or someone that appeared, say on just one reality television show and then vanished. As long as you're not a borderline BLP1E and you pass WP:N, you're good to go. The WP:N is the first and major hurdle, though. If you want examples of what is is notable, go look through the past few days of WP:AFD, and read the debates about articles about living people. Those would be real-time examples. That's really the only core metric of whether an article stays or goes, pretty much regardless of what anyone else may tell you. "Paid editing" is not against any rules, and how could it be? Unless you told us, we'd have no idea, and once told... so what? Once you publish the article here, you have zero control over it more than any other editor, and neither do your clients--we get a nice free article, hopefully with sources, hopefully that passes WP:N. If not... we delete it. I hope that helps. rootology/equality 20:08, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is fun!
I totally get it now. Thank you, Rootology, for the clarification. I was always a bit confounded by that "notable for one event" clause. Now I see. So what the guidelines state is that, just because the person is in the news, doesn't necessarily make him notable. It's only if the person is the subject of an event that is important in a broader socio-cultural sense. So, in the case of a real estate investor - if Longley had written a book about real estate investing that was a bestseller, or he had sold the most expensive home ever in the guiness book of world records or something - then he'd be notable, as a real estate investor? Do I have that right? Petrosianii (talk) 20:29, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome, and pretty much yeah -- but not if he was ONLY famous for the one Guiness record, generally speaking. For the book sales, that's often a different story. JK Rowling would have certainly counted after the first Harry Potter book, for example. Or lots of little events--if your subject is the feature of various news stories, again and again over time. Like, say if over 10 years 20 different newspapers do features on him. He would be a "lock" certainly. rootology/equality 20:33, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not a single reliable independent source providing anything approaching non-trivial, in-depth coverage available to establish notability. Likely his employer is not notable, either. His mother may or may not be notable. Looks like a nice guy. Also, what school did he get his highest degree from? Drawn Some (talk) 21:56, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 23:55, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete = No reliable resources. Not notable. The article even includes a grasping-at-straws attempt to show notability in the form of a statement that his mother has books vanity-published through Iuniverse. Flopsy Mopsy and Cottonmouth (talk) 06:12, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non notable guy. Hipocrite (talk) 14:41, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - there is no coverage about him in reliable sources. Being quoted a few times doesn't make one notable. -- Whpq (talk) 16:08, 2 June 2009 (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.