Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/London Steverson (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 delete. Jenks24 (talk) 17:08, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

London Steverson[edit]

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

The subject does not meet our notability guidelines. He was a U.S. federal administrative law judge who was removed from office. He also appears to have been an early figure in the desegregation of the U. S. Coast Guard Academy. While no doubt an accomplished gentlemen, the article here, (as did its predecessor, which was deleted pursuant to the first AFD), has suffered from COI or at the very least vanity spam from its inception. While one might at first be hopeful at seeing reference to the NYT, it turns out the subject is mentioned in one line near the end of the article. The great majority of the references either fail to mention the subject, or do so in passing. The most reliable sources (by far) in the article are the ones relating to the subject’s removal from office. I don’t see any (positive) source that is (1) reliable (2) independent of the subject and (3) offers significant coverage. The negative sources, while present their own concern, as would essentially create WP:BIO1E situation begging for a WP:COATRACK. This is why I nominated the article the first time, and why it was deleted then. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 03:12, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. 03:28, 21 September 2015 (UTC) Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 03:28, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. 03:28, 21 September 2015 (UTC) Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 03:28, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. 03:28, 21 September 2015 (UTC) Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 03:28, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, I agree with the nominator, no significant coverage. The sourcing is very thin as far as published / neutral / non-self-published articles. For example, one reference is a courtroom sketch. The bulk of the article seems to have been copied from subject's own blog, which apparently copied the previously deleted wikipedia article. There's a claim on the talk page that some of the material comes from an un-linked USCG or Social Security Admin bio, but if those biographies exist they may have been written by the article subject anyway. This article feels like a COI / auto-bio or vanity spam, and initially claimed his firing was a retirement. His blog and self-published books don't appear to meet requirements of WP:Author. The Coast Guard Academy material is adequately covered in the other articles, but he does not WP:Soldier criteria either. Some of these concerns were raised at Draft talk:London Eugene Livingston Steverson, but that talk page was not moved to main during the AFC process. This article should have went to WP:DRV first. --Dual Freq (talk) 23:28, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Both of you seem to be acting out of spite that the article was approved for publication in the first place over your objections. . Unsure what makes either of your opinions more valid than those who approved my submission.

Official biographies obtained by government documents are indeed a legitimate source. To argue against my use of government produced document on the basis that it "might" have been written by the subject that I wrote about is a slippery slope. Panama Jones (talk) 00:15, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with any deletion of this article. Both of the above critics seem to be arguing on the basis of an edit war that happened years ago. There has been no edit wars, vandalism or BLP policy violations. Aside from the above two critics nominating it almost immediately as soon as they saw it had been approved for publication over their objections, there has been no controversy. Panama Jones (talk) 00:19, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Self-written or not, no official biography is actually cited in the body of the article to indicate what came from the biography and what did not. See Wikipedia:Verifiability and WP:Cite. Also see WP:BLPSPS and WP:Selfpub with regards to the other references that simply repeat self-published materials like this from cgaalumni.org which appears to be just a copy of the self-written book promotional material. --Dual Freq (talk) 02:04, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It clearly states at the bottom that I derived my draft from official government documents, specifically USCG and SSA biographies. I then cross-referenced to third-party sources where I was able to and it was not only considered acceptable from my reading of BLP policies, it was approved for publication. You are trying to retroactively enforce something that is not required for other military biographies. Nevertheless, I have now referenced the hard-copy biographies anyway. Panama Jones (talk) 02:30, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In-line citations and end of the article attribution achieve two different goals, one tells where specific material came from, the other simply says some of it somewhere came from public domain sources. We need to be clear about where specific things came from, especially in biographies of living persons, but I appreciate that you corrected the issue by providing citations. There is still quite a bit of material in the article that it is not clear what source was used. Additionally, a SSA or USCG bio page doesn't automatically grant notability. An article still needs to meet some of the notability criteria to be kept, significant media coverage, WP:Soldier or WP:Author. None of the sources show that. Another concern is that it's interesting to me that you happen to have the article subject's DD Form 214 military discharge document and a copy of his USCG biography from 1986. Both seem rather rare and somewhat difficult to acquire. It would certainly alleviate some of my concerns if you would confirm here that you have no conflict of interest on the articles you created from drafts, as set forth in WP:COI / WP:COS. --Dual Freq (talk) 22:19, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I can see what you are implying by your "concern", and no, I am not the subject. I never claimed to "have" the subjects DD214, I stated the subject's DD214 verified the awards I inputed into the article at inception when I created it last month. Furthermore, your opinion regarding notability is no more valid than mine or anyone else's...including those other Wiki editors who approved the article for publication over your objections.

Still unsure of your obsession regarding this article from the get go, but IMO it gives the appearance of stalking and WikiHounding given your lack of the same level of "concern" for similarly published biographies of other serving and retired members of the Armed Forces posted here on Wiki.

If other editors agree with you about retroactively ruling the article does not meet Wiki notability policies, I can and will accept and support their decision as my goal is to be a positive contributer to the site, but your passive-aggressive approach in response to not having gotten your way in at the outset doesn't strike me as you having the most unbiased outlook on this matter. --Panama Jones (talk) 22:54, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You've claimed twice that the DD-214 verifies some portions of the article, but now you say you don't have it? You must have seen it or how do you know what it says? Otherwise, you should not claim to know what it verifies and should not use it as a reference. Also, WP:GNG is the notability guideline, it has not changed for a while, nor has WP:Author or WP:Soldier, so there has been nothing retroactive. Not every AFC'd page is kept, some are deleted after the fact, Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Article alerts shows several up for deletion, not just this one. I did try to find sources for Steverson, but I came up with only passing mentions as the nom stated. Only 1 hit on ebscohost, not substantial as well. I did find that the #1 google hit for London Steverson, which is the article about the SSA dismissal that was omitted from the original AFC'd article. FWIW, I have no COI with this article and nothing to lose or gain if it is retained or deleted. --Dual Freq (talk) 02:13, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete persistent attempt to create vanity article about a subject that does not meet our draft guideline SOLDIER. Buckshot06 (talk) 04:06, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The first black person to graduate from the USCGA was notable; the second probably is not. And that seems to be his only real claim to fame. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:45, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:32, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:32, 26 September 2015 (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.