Wikipedia:articles For Deletion Lance Sanderson

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, per the preponderance of opinions registered. Anyone who wants to create an article about the controversy rather than the person is free to do so, but I wouldn't be surprised if such an article were nominated for deletion as well. Deor ( talk) 18:50, 17 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Lance Sanderson

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

The subject is notable due to only WP:ONEEVENT - not enough to sustain the biography. It would be better if the subject got a mention in Homosexuality and religion and this article just redirected there. - NottNott| talk Notify with {{ re}} 15:57, 6 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Comment Given the level of personal detail in the article, not reflected in the sources, it seems likely that this violates WP:Auto or at minimum WP:BLPCOI. While this is not necessarily cause for deletion, it could be problematic if another editor doesn't significantly contribute to the article. As for NottNott's suggestion, I would oppose a mention in "Homosexuality and Religion" as that article is too general for this. If it were to be deleted or merged I would recommend it go into Christian Brothers High School (Memphis, Tennessee) which already has the relevant section. EAR47 ( talk) 16:42, 6 June 2016 (UTC) reply

The current article references his high involvement in the incident with Christian Brothers High School. I would oppose adding this article and the references to the school's page, Christian Brothers High School (Memphis, Tennessee), because they would likely delete the majority of the information. There is no reference to the incident on their Facebook page. WP:ONEEVENT also states that "If the event is highly significant, and the individual's role within it is a large one, a separate article is generally appropriate." Lance's social media pages, specifically his Instagram page "lancesanderson" show that he is becoming a public figure outside of just this incident. He was notably at an event with Sean O'Donnell in Los Angeles as shown on the page. On his twitter page, he has a number of interactions with talent/influencer managers including Oliver Luckett, the founder of theAudience. He has a number of twitter conversations with Cole Ledford and Austin Wallis, who went through a similar situation, both of whom are now prominent LGBT figures. Given the information listed, I would support Lance having a standalone article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Swiftsource97 ( talk • contribs) 17:33, 6 June 2016 (UTC) reply

The fact that the school do not refer to the incident on their facebook page is entirely unrelated to whether their wikipedia page (which is only "theirs" in the sense that it is about them; the school themselves do not own the page or control what is mentioned on it) mentions it; in fact, the wikipedia page for the school does mention it, though the section could do with a lot of work.

As for whether the event was highly significant, and Sanderson's role within it a large one: clearly the second part is true, but I'm not sure that a case has really been made effectively that the event really was that significant. It's certainly not as significant as the examples in WP:ONEEVENT: the assassinations of JFK and Archduke Franz Ferdinand, the Tiannamen Square protests, even the Steve Bartman Incident. (And if it were that significant, it should be moved to Lance Sanderson controversy per WP:ONEEVENT anyway).

Finally, Sanderson's associations with O'Donnell, Luckett, Ledford, and Wallis doesn't count towards Sanderson's notability: WP:NOTINHERITED is the relevant guideline here. (And Cole Ledford and Austin Wallis don't even have wikipedia articles, which while not conclusive is certainly evidence that they aren't all that notable either...) Caeciliusinhorto ( talk) 21:26, 6 June 2016 (UTC) reply

While yes, the event is not as notable as the listed events, it is ongoing and continues to evolve. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Swiftsource97 ( talk • contribs) 07:14, 7 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Delete minor businessman of no note. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 01:25, 7 June 2016 (UTC) reply
It is worth noting that the above user likely disagrees with this article because of his opposition to LGBT individuals as stated in his profile. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Swiftsource97 ( talk • contribs) 07:11, 7 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Given that his deletion rationale is perfectly valid, we should probably assume good faith here. Especially since you are over-characterising the position that Johnpacklambert expresses on his user-page: being a Mormon and opposing same-sex marriage are not quite the same thing as opposing LGBT individuals. 09:19, 7 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Just because one has not heard of a business does not make it minor. Also, by copying his username into a quick Facebook search and using the information supplied on his wikipedia page, you can easily find his profile and views on LGBT issues of which he has many. It is no stretch to say that he is against LGBT causes and the notability of LGBT public figures. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Swiftsource97 ( talk • contribs) 10:09, 7 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Move to Lance Sanderson controversy or similar. I agree that the subject is notable only for a single event, and that WP:BIO1E applies. However, I think that the event may have enough coverage in reliable sources to warrant an article ( http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/gay-teen-catholic-homecoming_us_5604c66fe4b0768126fd09d3, http://www.teenvogue.com/story/catholic-school-refuses-lance-sanderson-same-sex-date-homecoming, http://www.mtv.com/news/2282218/christian-high-school-tennessee-gay-student-male-date-denied/, https://mic.com/articles/125991/catholic-school-suspends-gay-student-after-being-barred-from-bringing-homecoming-date#.424gWSBlX, http://wreg.com/2015/09/28/lance-sanderson-suspended-from-christian-brothers/, http://www.wmcactionnews5.com/story/30104559/cbhs-denies-homecoming-date-for-gay-student are all in the current article). There are already similar articles about other incidents, such as 2010 Itawamba County School District prom controversy. The article at the moment is just advertising for his photography business, which is as far as I can tell not notable in the slightest. The reason that he is at all notable is the prom controversy, and our article on wikipedia should reflect that. Caeciliusinhorto ( talk) 17:09, 7 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Move to Lance Sanderson controversy. I agree with Caeciliusinhorto's statements; the event does appear to meet notability gudelines, but a biographical article seems inappropriate per WP:ONEEVENT. The current article does bring up strong concerns about WP:PROMOTION, and a move would instead keep it on track to be about the notable event. EAR47 ( talk) 19:59, 7 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Delete or move per above. The article is mainly advertising for his business. White Arabian Filly ^Neigh 20:35, 8 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Delete as regardless of how unnecessarily political this AfD is starting to become, there's still nothing at all for any actual independent notability and chances are that there will be nothing better at all in the future. I would've also considered PROD regardless of the amount of apparent links. SwisterTwister talk 04:36, 9 June 2016 (UTC) reply
I haven't done enough investigation to say whether this should be kept or deleted, but I'm sure that the nominator's idea of including him in the Homosexuality and religion article would fall foul of WP:UNDUE. This should be kept or deleted, not redirected somewhere where the subject doesn't belong. 86.17.222.157 ( talk) 18:50, 9 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Comment: @ Swiftsource97: Are you able to improve this article a bit? In its current state, evidence of notability is lacking, and there are no inline citations, apart from LinkedIn, which is not considered a reliable source. This article is much more likely to be kept if editors can at least see why it should be kept. --- Another Believer _(
Talk) 22:17, 9 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Delete per WP:BLP1E and WP:NOTNEWS. I can find no reliable sources for the subject other than a couple of news stories, in L'Express and El País, about one incident. At a stretch it might be considered that the tabloid Daily Mail and Daily Mirror are reliable in this case, but they are also just news stories about this one incident. A wrong was done to this person that probably deserves publicity, but an encyclopedia is not the place for such publicity. 86.17.222.157 ( talk) 16:58, 10 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Delete This is a mess. Previously I'd have said delete for WP:BLP1E per 86.17.222.157 above, but the article has seemingly now been edited to remove this person's one arguable claim to notability (although all the references are still about the incident). As things stand, subject now clearly fails the GNG. Fosse 8► 16:11, 15 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Delete - clearly a case of WP:ONEEVENT. Tom29739 ^[
talk 21:11, 15 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Delete If you think this one event is worth it then combine all instances where some kid is denied a prom-date, a certain attire, or access to the local dance because LGBT; there're plenty. Lance is not special. 75.172.181.80 ( talk) 03:54, 16 June 2016 (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.