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. While there are a lot of poor arguments here, such as the implication that passing mentions count toward notability, the well-reasoned arguments are evenly split, and I do not see consensus emerging based on further participation. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:52, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lloyd Monserratt (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

2006 AfD closed as no consensus. There's a lot written, but I'm not convinced there's anything notable here. He got a library branch named after him [1], but I'm afraid there is no notability criteria that says anyone who has this is inherently notable. In fact, the LA Times article I just linked suggests that he got the branch as a memorial to someone who died too soon to really hit their stride (become notable). Neither being a leader at UCLA, a director at NALEO, or chief-of-staff for a councilmember meets NPOL. Coverage cited in the article includes a local obituary (permanent deadlink), Daily Bruin obit (student newspaper, dubious reliability, not indicative of notability), an incredibly short LA Times obit, coverage of him as an activist at UCLA, mostly in passing, small local paper, and similar. A really good source is LA Weekly, but to me that still isn't indicative of more than local notability. Admittedly, it's a borderline case. In summary, this seems to be a case of a person who died too soon to become clearly notable. And that's a real shame. Eddie891 Talk Work 21:10, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]


Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Eddie891 Talk Work 21:10, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Eddie891 Talk Work 21:10, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Eddie891 Talk Work 21:10, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Scouting-related deletion discussions. --evrik (talk) 23:59, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I don’t see the connection. You’re welcome to nominate those articles if you have a problem with them. We have numerous articles from the late 2000s that don’t meet our notability standards. I came across this article intending to review it for ga, but I couldn’t exactly see why he was notable. And, with all due respect, the article probably wouldn’t be listed as a ga as it stands, ignoring notability— the daily Bruin is of dubious reliability, there are prose concerns and sourcing. But the first issue is that of notability. Eddie891 Talk Work 01:22, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
... so no GA review? ;-) I think you answered the question. Next time, perhaps you can just fail the GA review? --evrik (talk) 01:54, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Notability is not a GA requirement. So if a reviewer has doubts about a subjects notability, bringing it here is the correct procedure. AIRcorn (talk) 02:37, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
A lot of those mid 00's articles were left there in hopes that someone else would get to them and flesh them out. Didn't ever happen. But my actual point is this - AfD met a real purpose for keeping down impacts on the wiki and db servers in an era where bandwidth was much much lesser and hard drives were smaller and more expensive. I now have fiber at home, 802.11ac, and terabyte hard drives everywhere I look. Now on the one hand, if you're trying to keep up quality, you don't want fancruft, press releases, and such like trying to pass itself off as encyclopedic, but I fail to see where an article that has tried to improve itself is either fannish or a press release. --JohnDBuell (talk) 14:33, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Let me count, there are 26 references. Of those ...
LA Times - Six references
NY Times - One reference
Time magazine - One reference
La Opinión - One reference
LA Weekly - Three references

It seems to me that notability is established. --evrik (talk) 04:35, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's also been established that just being mentioned in articles doesn't mean WP:GNG is met. The NY Times article, as mentioned, is brief and mentions him once - that clearly doesn't count. The LA Times articles on the student election aren't really about him but more about the controversy generally, and I'm not sure we would keep an article on the event. As I've mentioned above, it's not impossible this gets kept, but it's very, very far from being a clear cut case. SportingFlyer T·C 09:47, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I appreciate what you say, but isn't this a discussion? I have gone back several times since this discussion began and added more content and sources. Some of the things said do not capture all the sources, or worse, describe the sources improperly. Truth be told, the LA Weekly articles are probably the most comprehensive. The other articles document specific facts. I said this earlier, but it bothers me that in trying to get this article to GA status, it got nominated for deletion. --evrik (talk) 15:03, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is the AP Wire service quote on the Morales campaign, and the quote by Alex Padilla. In this source, Greene, Robert (2003-01-16). "The Silenced Warrior". LA Weekly., it says ..."a key player in the strategic Latino alliance ... of elected officials ... an alternative Los Angeles Latino power base." While not a direct quote, you would have to understand the dynamic between the Torristas and the Molinistas. His influence also came from his work with NALEO. --evrik (talk) 04:12, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Where do you get a "national influence" from the two Newspapers.com articles? One is a quotation in the Tampa Bay Times that doesn't indicate his notability or influence and the other a very short article about the UCLA election that gives him about two sentences of coverage. Eddie891 Talk Work 22:24, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The fact that he was national director of constituent services for Latino campaigns around the country and his analysis of the election results was quoted by the national wire services speaks for itself.  JGHowes  talk 22:49, 11 October 2020 (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.