- Lawrence Gaughan (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)
page does not violate any of Wikipedia's academic guidelines LawrenceofVA (talk) 22:58, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse The consensus was clearly against the retention of the article. @LawrenceofVA:, do you have a conflict of interest regarding the subject of the article, or has the subject or their representatives given you a financial inventive to maintain the article or have the article kept? Jumpytoo Talk 03:03, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- I do not understand your question. All I know, is the article - Lawrence Gaughan has been there for several years and there is no reason to delete it. It makes no sense. It is clear that someone decided to try to delete it (probably a political enemy or someone who has a personal interest in seeing it deleted). Otherwise, why would it be deleted? It is an article about a person who is the founder of a non-profit, a credited actor, a musician who has released several albums on worldwide platforms, and someone who won a major party nomination to run for very high office in the United States. That all adds up to quite a lot of notoriety and it does no harm to Wikipedia as an academic platform to have an article (or page) about such a person, especially if new stuff continues to be added. What happens if a person has their article deleted, but then they get some press for their creative endeavors or they run for high office again? How can they add to an article that has been deleted? Have you ever given that any consideration. Please at least temporarily restore the article. There is no compelling reason to delete it. LawrenceofVA (talk) 06:01, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Please answer the three questions. These are yes or no questions.
- Are you Lawrence Gaughan?
- If no to the above, are you being paid or compensated by Lawrence Gaughan?
- If no to the above, are you a friend or otherwise personally connected to Lawrence Gaughan?
- Note that it is a violation of the Terms of Service to be compensated for edits and failing to disclose your conflict of interest. Jumpytoo Talk 06:25, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- I am Lawrence Gaughan, and can certainly provide proof of this fact. There have been NO violations of any kind in regards to the article for Lawrence Gaughan. I ask that it immediately be restored and promos that there will never be any issues with the article as it is added to in the future. It only hurts Wikipedia for a page that is seen on a regular basis to be deleted. LawrenceofVA (talk) 21:26, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse. No other way this AFD could have been closed. Nom does not present anything to refute the arguments presented at the debate. Disagreeing with the result is not calls for DRV. ✗plicit 11:01, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse - AFD was closed in accordance with the discussion, and in accordance with standard practice that unsuccessful candidates for political office normally do not satisfy general notability. Appellant has not provided a reason for an appeal. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:33, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Reason for an appeal? Look at your own words. You say that an "unsuccessful candidates for political office Normally do not satisfy general notability"? But look at the article and you will see there are many other factors including several major film and TV credits, and other things that most people do not normally accomplish in half a lifetime. Do you see the fallacy in your own words? Just because there are guidelines for notability of political candidates does not mean that the article should be deleted. Name one political candidate who has also been in major movies, founded a non-profit that has received national coverage, and also released several albums of music who had their page deleted from Wikipedia. You probably cannot name such a person, let alone find one such person who HAS a Wikipedia page. Do you understand? Wikipedia is an academic platform, where someone who has accomplished all of those things is very RARE and should not have their article deleted based on some subjective decision. What person has done all of those things and had their page deleted, let alone done all those things period. IT does not degrade Wikipedia in ANY way to restore the page. I can tell you that until the article (page) was deleted, several people went to look at it on a daily basis. I know for a fact that every day someone would Google Lawrence Gaughan and see the article and click on it. Such activity only reinforces Wikipedia's purpose and mission. Deleting the article does NOTHING to help Wikipedia or bring more people to the site. LawrenceofVA (talk) 06:15, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse The discussion was clear that a redirect was the preferred outcome. --Enos733 (talk) 16:26, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse – the closure reflects the consensus reached in the discussion. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 23:46, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- The fact is deletion of the article does nothing to help Wikipedia, because people were viewing the article on a regular basis before it was deleted. When someone would Google the name Lawrence Gaughan they would see the link to the Wikipedia article and click on it. The link to the Wikipedia article has also been posted on sites like YouTube and other media sites where people would click on it and go to the Wikipedia site. So deleting the article does nothing to further the mission or purpose of Wikipedia. In fact it only reduces the number of people who will potentially go to the site and view articles or donate. So, yes, not only is there absolutely no reason to delete the article, but it is actually counter intuitive and goes against the purpose of getting people to view the site. Furthermore, the article absolutely does NOT violate any laws or copyrights. The article was carefully assembled and edited so as not to cause any conflict what so ever. To delete it makes no sense and the deletion appears to be subjective, arbitrary, and even capricious (perhaps motivated by an interest in harming the subject - Lawrence Gaughan). If you can prove that deleting the article benefits Wikipedia in ANY way, or that Wikipedia will get MORE views by deleting the article, then, and only then, will you have made a solid case for deleting it. People viewed that article on a regular basis, and now that it has been deleted, those views are no longer occurring, which can not possibly serve the best interest of the site. You cannot prove otherwise. LawrenceofVA (talk) 06:25, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse per all of the above. There's a possibility for someone to demonstrate independent notability, but the WP:ATD-R outcome was entirely consistent with the discussion, which was policy based. Jclemens (talk) 02:23, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Please read the replies to "all of the above" and you will see that there is absolutely no reason to delete the article, and in fact it is counter intuitive to the very purpose of Wikipedia to delete it. To endorse deletion (or redirection - which IS the same as deletion) despite the demonstrable independent notability is faulty reasoning. Before the article was deleted, 1) no harm or violation against Wikipedia occurred and 2) there were people clicking on the Wikipedia link in a Google search and without the article that means there will be fewer people going to Wikipedia's site, because there will be one less article for people to read. It makes absolutely no reasonable sense to delete the article. It was not in violation of any laws governing academic sites. LawrenceofVA (talk) 06:32, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi Mr. Gaughan, thanks for taking the time to engage here. Saw you in Babylon 5, though I'd be hard pressed to say which telepath you were playing. At any rate, I'm sympathetic: you've gotten some press, in a number of different venues and rationales, but the consensus of the people discussing your article at the time was that none of them--candidate, organizational founder, actor, musician--had achieved sufficient independent recognition ("notability") in the general press. I don't think the outcome, redirecting your name to just one political campaign, is all that great, and I think there's a reasonable chance you do indeed meet the criteria for having an article... but that's not what the discussion found. The discussion and this associated appeal only apply to the deleted version: identify substantial new or previously overlooked material, and you can un-redirect the article and add it to it. Feel free to ask an experienced editor for help with that, as you do have a conflict of interest in your own article. Jclemens (talk) 02:00, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
|
