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 no consensus. After two full relistings and then some, no consensus is evident in this discussion. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:58, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Anthony Senecal[edit]

Anthony Senecal (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

Fails WP:NBIO and violates WP:BLP1E and WP:NOTNEWS. The subject recently achieved media coverage for making death threats against Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton on Facebook; however, the threats were far from credible, and most of the buzz came from the fact that he is the ex-butler of Donald Trump. While many sources exist, they all seem to concern this one event, and it does not seem that the subject has attained lasting significance. Colonel Wilhelm Klink (^Complaints|_Mistakes) 22:56, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to or perhaps merge with Donald Trump presidential campaign, 2016, as the sources would justify a spot in that article. MB298 (talk) 23:13, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - as much as I'd love for his bad behavior get more publicity, we almost always delete such articles. Bearian (talk) 15:36, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Very strong delete This article is an attack article. It also has one source, which is inherently not in compliance with GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:32, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Johnpacklambert: how exactly is this an "attack article"? Is there anything non-factual? Your argument that it only has one source is fatuous given how much media coverage there was of this man just a couple of months ago. A Train^talk 15:49, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as nothing for actual independent notability, and there will imaginably be none of course based from what's insinuated as a career. SwisterTwister talk 06:17, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, as WP:NOTNEWS and not WP:ONEVENT and WP:NOTINHERITED. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:31, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Before all of the furore about this guy's Facebook page popped up in May, there was a lengthy New York Times profile of the man that ran in March. So between the Times profile and the later coverage (in Vanity Fair, the Washington Post just to name two), I would suggest that there was substantial coverage of Senecal in unquestionably reliable sources, thus meeting the bar of WP:BIO. A Train^talk 15:44, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A Train: With all due respect, what exists does not seem to indicate notability. To quote WP:BASIC (particularly the section I've italicized): "People who meet the basic criteria may be considered notable without meeting the additional criteria below. Articles may still not be created for such people if they fall under exclusionary criteria, such as being notable only for a single event...". In other words, even topics which technically satisfy WP:BIO may not be notable if, like Mr. Senecal, they only receive coverage for one event. Looking at what we have: the Times profile was written mostly due to Senecal's association with Donald Trump; even the title ("How Donald Trump Lives") indicates that. As such, it doesn't give too much weight to independent notability for Senecal. The rest mostly deals with the short-term interest generated by his social media antics, and there seems to be no lasting significance. Per WP:GNG, the existence of coverage in reliable sources (even significant coverage) only creates an assumption that a topic is notable; one must investigate further to determine whether that coverage indicates notability. In this case, while there is rather significant coverage, that coverage does not add up to long-term notability. Colonel Wilhelm Klink (^Complaints|_Mistakes) 21:43, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Colonel Wilhelm Klink:, that is a thoughtful argument. I still find myself disagreeing though. I can see where you are coming from with the idea that Senecal has inherited his notability from Trump, and if the only good source here was the NYT profile, I would agree. But the subsequent social media kerfuffle made him newsworthy own his own. I think that being at the center of a controversial episode in an election that will be pored over for decades to come will supply quite a lot of long-term interest in Senecal. A Train^talk 19:08, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A Train: I suppose we'll have to agree to disagree; I see the point you're making, but I'm still not convinced that notability is attained. Hopefully this AfD will receive some fresh insight; it would be interesting to hear what others think. At any rate, thanks for the reply, and happy editing. Colonel Wilhelm Klink (^Complaints|_Mistakes) 20:58, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Per User:A Train, there seems to be sufficient coverage for WP:BIO. ReusGang (talk) 10:12, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. sufficient coverage for WP:BIO and WP:GNG. good source in the article and plenty more via a simple google search.BabbaQ (talk) 21:39, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per A Train and BabbaQ. This is a living person who has granted several interviews with reliable sources, and pushed himself into the limelight. It is not just one incident. Bearian (talk) 13:39, 25 October 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.