Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Talbert W. Swan, II

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. Eluchil404 (talk) 20:24, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Talbert W. Swan, II

Talbert W. Swan, II (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Non-notable local activist, fails WP:BIO. While his family has some prominence in his hometown (the patriarch is in the state legislature), subject's own claims to notability are scant; of his several books, the only one that's broken four millionth in sales rank on Amazon is at #1,671,692. A Google search turns up a meager 69 unique hits [1], led by this article and the homepage of his church. The article was created by an SBA that hasn't been seen since, and has remained orphaned and unimproved for over a year.  RGTraynor  07:21, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP!☺} 03:03, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

• Delete Google search doesn't turn up anything that stands out aside from various Christian noticeboards.

Keep per Lquilter; good idea searching G news, I didn't think of that. Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP!☺} 06:24, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

• Keep Google news search does, though, as the article suggests. 500+ articles in which the name appears, plus it appears he's the named plaintiff defendant/appellant in a Mass SJC case. --Lquilter (talk) 04:38, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

• Comment: That's 500+ articles if you enter all results listing "Talbert" or "W" or "Swan," as you did. Using the name "Talbert W. Swan" that becomes only 26 hits [2], every one a quote from him in a local paper about some issue or another, and not, as WP:BIO and WP:RS require, about Swan himself. The three hits that are not concern a 12-year-old court case, all of which are rejections without comment on appeal. If someone can come up with verifiable, independent, reliable sources about the subject, I'd like to see them.  RGTraynor  06:41, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I'd say this is promising, as he's quoted. He's also quoted in the Washington Post ([3]) and a San Diego newspaper ([4]). That warrants at least a stub, in my opinion. Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP!☺} 06:46, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Errr ... the governing rule isn't whether his name has ever been in a newspaper. To quote from WP:BIO: "A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject ... trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may not be sufficient to establish notability." (emphasis mine) Once again, where are the articles about Swan, as WP:BIO requires, and what elements of WP:BIO do you feel he fulfills?  RGTraynor  13:22, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Not that his name was in the newspaper, but that he was actually quoted as a source for the article. Of course, you're right, those aren't very good primary sources, but I'm checking out more of the sites that pop up in Google to see if there's anything better. Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP!☺} 13:48, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

• Being quoted in the paper is neither necessary nor sufficient, but if someone has been quoted many, many times, then that's a suggestion that they have some notability that causes them to be quoted. As it turns out, Swan is prominent as an anti-gay crusader, and while I didn't recognize the name at first, once I started reading, I was like, "oh, him"." --Lquilter (talk) 14:11, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree; I said that the times he's been quoted seem to indicate that he's notable if various news sources refer to him for information. Still going through Google as time permits. Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP!☺} 16:22, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

just to clarify in case of misunderstanding - I was really responding more to RTrayner. glad you're reviewing the cites. --Lquilter (talk) 16:35, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I understand, I was just saying I agree. ;) Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP!☺} 20:21, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

The things Swan's written certainly bolsters the premise that he fancies himself to be an anti-gay crusader, but claims that he's actually prominent as one would have to rest on some genuine secondary sources per WP:RS about him. I've yet to find a single one.  RGTraynor  17:28, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- -- pb30<talk> 18:00, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
• Weak delete unless sourced. Google News does indeed have quit a number of quotes, but very little in the way of declarative statements about him beyond identifying his job and employer. There's too little for a encyclopedically neutral article. --Dhartung | Talk 05:25, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JERRY ^talk _contribs 22:14, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

• Delete unless something specific and sourced gets addedto the article.DGG (talk) 04:30, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. I agree with the two above me that the quotes are not enough, they seem trivial to me, which fails the significant coverage standard of WP:N. SorryGuy  Talk  02:50, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete, the coverage provided appears trivial. Lankiveil ^{(complaints | disco)} 12:20, 10 February 2008 (UTC).

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.