Talk:William H. Lacy

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.	Biography Portal
Stub	This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Wisconsin, a WikiProject related to the U.S. state of Wisconsin. For more information, or to get involved, visit the project page. If you give this article a rating or change a previous rating, please leave a short summary in the comments to explain the rating and/or identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article.
Stub	This article has been rated as stub-Class on the quality scale.
Low	This article has been rated as low-importance on the importance scale.

[edit] Notability

Miaers notes: "Notability backed by google search result. http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=William+H.+Lacy&btnG=Google+Search 2,010,000)"

I disagree on two grounds. First, A quick look through the first 50 Google results of those 2,010,000 entries only 13 of the first 20 are for this William H. Lacy. Second, these 13 are nearly all SEC filings or standard "company important person" listings based on information from those SEC filings. By my reading this doesn't meet any of the possible criteria for notable people. I don't even see any fluff pieces in industry rags.

Please mention here if you think this should be nominated for speedy deletion, or if we should go through the WP:AFD process.Gruber76 03:39, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

That's still notable enough. He is even in the NNDB. Miaers 13:45, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

That's evidence, but it's from a tertiary source, which makes it a little shaky. Are there other entries in Wikipedia where the primary qualification for notability is an entry in the NNDB? (The NNDB entry was of the type I was indicating when I said "standard 'company important person' listings.") Gruber76 15:23, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

NNDB is actually more selective in notability. 13/20 of 2,010,000 is still a very large number. Notable enough. Miaers 16:42, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

But it's still a tertiary source. I've looked through about 60 links, now, and have yet to find any independent secondary sources, much less "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." (Note that per Wikipedia's notability guidelines a "source" in this context includes secondary sources, but not tertiary sources. NNDB appears to be a tertiary source) I'm going to open up an AfD to bring in some other perspectives. Gruber76 18:54, 3 July 2007 (UTC)