Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mike Lofgren
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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. postdlf (talk) 20:14, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Mike Lofgren[edit]
- Mike Lofgren (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non-noteworthy political figure known for one event, and sources solely reflect that one event. Thargor Orlando (talk) 01:39, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 03:50, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 03:50, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Probably notable as an author, even for a single book; it is in 813 libraries a/c Worldcat, and the article cites a review in Booklist; I'm checking for more. Single event does not apply in anuy case: h';e's notable for his political work, for the articlehe published, and for his book. DGG ( talk ) 05:44, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep He's not greatly notable, but he's notable enough for a Wikipedia page according to our criteria. George Custer's Sabre (talk) 06:06, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: He has not been shown to be a notable author per WP:CREATIVE. I could care less about how many libraries his one book is in. Probably notable doesn't cut it. SL93 (talk) 02:15, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep It's not really an "event" that he's noted for -- he did not get embroiled in a one-off scandal or became a victim of a crime. He is notable because he spent his entire working life in the Republican Party, and then wrote a book denouncing their current strategy and tactics. The book, and the article that preceded it, got widespread coverage, and today Lofgren is quoted in the news media as an expert on the U.S. political process. He has been quoted on this topic for nearly two years now, most recently five days ago. Sue Gardner (talk) 22:28, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Where is this "widespread coverage" beyond the topic he's known for? More to the point, where was it covered much beyond unreliable sources like Truthout and Policymic? Thargor Orlando (talk) 00:02, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I've added this to the article: "Since the publication of his book, Lofgren has been interviewed by the news media on issues such as "the death by self-infliction of the Republican Party,"[17][18] dysfunction in both U.S. major political parties[19][20][21] and Republican filibustering in the U.S. Senate.[22]" with citations to Bill Moyers, Eliot Spitzer on Current TV and Pacifica Radio. Sue Gardner (talk) 13:11, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Are those interviews about him, or simply about his points of view? Thargor Orlando (talk) 13:46, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I've added this to the article: "Since the publication of his book, Lofgren has been interviewed by the news media on issues such as "the death by self-infliction of the Republican Party,"[17][18] dysfunction in both U.S. major political parties[19][20][21] and Republican filibustering in the U.S. Senate.[22]" with citations to Bill Moyers, Eliot Spitzer on Current TV and Pacifica Radio. Sue Gardner (talk) 13:11, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Where is this "widespread coverage" beyond the topic he's known for? More to the point, where was it covered much beyond unreliable sources like Truthout and Policymic? Thargor Orlando (talk) 00:02, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 17:26, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:09, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Massively coverage by sources, as indicated above. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 20:32, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per WP:BASIC. There are multiple secondary sources for his book. Elissa Rubria Honoria (talk) 04:03, 14 August 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.