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. Until(1 == 2) 05:01, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

David L. Leamon[edit]

David L. Leamon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

I'm sure a claim to having had the lobby of a local public library named after oneself is not enough to pass notability criteria, but I suppose it's enough to not be speedily deleted. Non-notable librarian, with no sources. — Coren ^(talk) 01:25, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Although I'm sure he's greatly contributed to a local community, I see no way how this fulfills WP:BIO. - Kneel17 01:40, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: His contributions to the Library community across the country as well as to communities in Michigan, Texas and Kansas does qualify him for inclusion. If this does not qualify him for inclusion then I would say that the many articles about mayors of Topeka would also need to be deleted as they have had virtually no impact outside the Topeka area where David Leamon has. Jopgaard 01:50, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS is not a valid argument for deletion. --Ybbor^Talk 02:21, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Ooooh! He has a circulation lobby named after him.... uh, what the heck is a circulation lobby, anyway? Not notable, folks. Realkyhick 02:26, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This guy's just an average librarian - no notability established Corpx 02:29, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete fails WP:BIO, not notable person. Oysterguitarist 03:31, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Does indeed fail the criteria for notability. Not notable enough for own article. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 03:38, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Delete The most notable thing I could find about this guy was that the Topeka library got sued when he was director after a staffer was fired for discussing gay rights issues. Unfortunately, Mr. Leamon was on vacation at the time the firing occurred and had no direct involvement in the incident. Montco 04:08, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[1][reply]
• Weak keep as notability is asserted and cites can be verified. Bearian 16:43, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Being head of major library systems in multiple states (Kansas, Michigan, Texas, and in top management in Washington) seems to put him near the top of his field, not average. Sohelpme 19:24, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• ... which is laudable, but does not meet WP:BIO. — Coren ^(talk) 03:48, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep. I think Mr. Leamon more than meets the criteria in WP:BIO. He has played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work or collective body of work (multiple Libraries significant enough for you?) which have been the subject of multiple independent periodical articles, and he personally has been the subject of multiple independent periodical articles as well. Additionally, his work has become a significant monument within each community, 2 of his libraries have won significant critical attention and are internationally significant both architecturally and for the services they provide. If you go by the academic standards, he is repeatedly quoted in newspapers or newsmagazines , has appeared on CNN and is widely regarded as a significant expert in his area. Zafti 17:22, 24 July 2007 (UTC) — Safti (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
• Keep on the basis of the building activity. Librarians dont get very often to design major new facilities, and to have planned two notable ones with major architects is quite distinctive. It's sometimes hard judging the work of administrators, but I think he's well over the bar. DGG (talk) 07:28, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep The article has expanded some and accumulated citations since being brought to AFD. The references are from two newspapers, but the set from one newspaper are not accessible, which is why I append Weak to my support. Assuming Good Faith, I would say that the subject passes the first WP:BIO criterion of being the subject of multiple secondary sources (I count the 6 articles being from 2 secondary sources in this case - which is why WP:AGF is needed). Having a part of a building named after you satisfies (weakly) satisfies a second of the WP:BIO criteria - receiving a significant recognized honor; people seek out having wings of buildings and rooms named after them as persistent marks of their influence. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 00:00, 27 July 2007 (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.