Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Lavalette (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 keep. -- Cirt (talk) 00:16, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Lavalette

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

Does not meet either WP:POLITICIAN or WP:PROF. Does not meet general WP:N criteria either as majority of references are for internal Socialist Workers Party (UK) (ie self-published) works. TreveX^talk 13:30, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Elected local politician with extensive list of publications. Very nicely done page. I can't for the life of me figure out how Wikipedia would be improved by the deletion of this material. Publications OF the SWP are not "self-published works," incidentally, they are publications of the SWP, not Lavalette. Carrite (talk) 13:40, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Previously closed as a Keep with the closing administrator noting: The result was Keep - while not every alderman is necessarily encyclopaedic, that does not mean that no alderman is encyclopaedic. Notability is not temporary. Carrite (talk) 13:43, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Aldermans/councillors can be encyclopaedic -- but the point is that this one isn't because he clearly doesn't meet the criteria no matter how "niceley done" the page is. Lavalette meets none of the notability criteria for academics here or politicians here. The references given are either articles about something else in which Lavalette is mentioned/quoted in passing or works published by the Socialist Workers Party, of which he is a member. TreveX^talk 16:46, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 02:29, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 02:29, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 02:29, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - This is a politician, not an author, and as a local alderman he's going to have to get over the bar by General Notability Guidelines rather than the specific guidelines for politicians. So no need to quote chapter and verse about either of those, they don't apply. So, is this a person who is the subject of multiple, independent, non-trivial, and reliable articles in the media? THAT is the question. Deletionists absolutely fucking hate it when I start examining this question with a search of Google for the exact phrase, but I am a man of science and I believe in random sampling and probability theory. In a huge haystack, there are apt to be needles. Google hits on this specific, uncommon name = 52,400. That is a TON.

In an ideal world, the nominator would themselves run a Google search, see that a name generated 52,400 returns, and start tagging for more sources instead of hauling the article to AfD for annihilation, knowing full well that chances are there are 3 keepers in a haystack that large. That didn't happen, so let's play this hand out, shall we?

THIRD ITEM ON THE FIRST PAGE GENERATED BY THE GOOGLE SEARCH (!!!) is an article from The Guardian. "Time is of the essence AN INTERVIEW WITH MICHAEL LAVELETTE". Umm, since there were a couple links posted for me, here's one for the nominator. WP:BEFORE. That's ONE independent, non-trivial, reliable source. Carrite (talk) 03:26, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We see from the article in The Guardian (which Wikipedia notes was established in 1821 and has a circulation of nearly 280,000 in 2011) that Lavalette was the founder of a group called Social Work Action Network. Let's google that for more hay, shall we? That's another 23,100 hits for that exact phrase, many of which should be mineable for this article. At this point, I'm willing to bet 20 American Dollars that there is adequate sourcing out there on this guy... Still, rules are rules and we must all follow the rules, otherwise somebody might try to slip in an article through the cracks at Wikipedia and we mustn't have that. So let's take another look at our Google search for a couple more keeper hits, shall we... Coverage of the only SWP councilor in Britain (a claim to notability, even if he was recently defeated) is not surprisingly made IN THE SWP PRESS ITSELF. That's probably not gonna cut the mustard at AfD, but I do bring it up because this is the sort of thing that a serious WP editor writing a serious biography, like this one, is apt to use. Don't wrinkle your nose, available sources are mined and sometimes "very nicely done" encyclopedia pages are produced as a result. That's what we're shooting for, is it not — a nicely done encyclopedia? Still, I understand that there's going to have to be more here than just that. Carrite (talk) 03:42, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

THIS PIECE by Edge Hill University notes that Lavalette gave the keynote speech at an academic seminar on children's rights, indicating his position as a recognized expert. Carrite (talk) 03:50, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The blog Islamophobia Watch notes that Lavalette is in the front rank of those fighting against the right wing English Defense League, per THIS LINK. Oh, dear, it's a blog. Point is: this is one of the leading left-Socialist politicians in Britain, not some random city councilor of Smalltown. Carrite (talk) 03:55, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Here's reportage on Lavalette from THE WEEKLY WORKER, newpaper of the Communist Party of Great Britain. No, the CPGB and the SWP are not the same organization. Far from it. Quite the opposite. This is, in fact, independent, significant, and reliable coverage from a left wing news source — no different than Fox News being cited on a Republican Party politician in the USA, with the proviso that the Communist Party of Great Britain is apt to be more "reliable" in their coverage than Fox News. I do not jest, I am serious. That's TWO. Carrite (talk) 04:04, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There are tons of blogs on Lavalette and book reviews on the multitude of things he has written, but that's not what we're gonna do to find that third source. Let's go to the local mainstream newspaper, shall we? The Lancashire Evening Post of Preston. And here's A 2004 NEWS ACCOUNT IN THAT PAPER of an invitation extended by the Palestinian Authoriity to Lavalette inviting him to spend a week in the West Bank to develop his project to make Preston a sister city of Nablus. THAT'S THREE. I could go on, but I don't want to have to spend my time defending an article that never should have been challenged in the first place. The subject of this article CLEARLY passes WP:GNG. An obvious Keep. Carrite (talk) 04:13, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, as per Carrite. As a cursory Google Web, Google Books and Google Scholar search shows, a well-known figure, even if from a minor party. BTW, it would be nice to format the "publications" list. For books (like the one reviewed here), it would be nice to supply the ISBN for a quick look up, or at least the publisher's name; for newspaper/magazine/journal articles (such as this) , the name of the periodical. -- Vmenkov (talk) 04:52, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Carrite. This coverage is about as good as a politician of his ilk is likely to get in Britain unless he gets involved in a scandal or pulls off some spectacular stunt, both of which I would regard as poor reasons for inclusion in an encyclopedia. So this is a test of whether Wikipedia is willing to include minority political interests or not. On the whole, I think it should. Context is everything when judging notability. --AJHingston (talk) 16:37, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Carrite lays out a strong case. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Celahir Séregon (talk • contribs) 19:18, 29 May 2011 (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.