Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fred Lambert

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. Once the unexplained/single-purpose account !votes are discounted, there's fairly clear consensus that the sourcing here isn't sufficient to establish notability. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 19:16, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Fred Lambert

[Hide this box]New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

The subject is not notable enough for an article as demonstrated by the lack of coverage in independent reliable sources and the very limited scope of the subject's own writings. QRep2020 (talk) 18:54, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Journalism, Companies, Transportation, and Canada. Skynxnex (talk) 19:14, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete coverage of the person rather thin and does not reach WP:BASIC. One source in the article is a tweet. His podcast has some coverage in books, and other places, but we just do not have enough for an encyclopedic article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bruxton (talk • contribs) 20:28, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Blackhawkeyes (talk) 19:01, 27 December 2022 (UTC) — Blackhawkeyes (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete Not notable, sparse coverage in RS. ~ HAL333 02:31, 25 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The user requesting the deletion is doing it maliciously. His own history ont his website shows that he focuses on TSLAQ a group known for attacking Fred Lambert, the subject of this page.

There's plenty of coverage about the subject, inlcuding 6 different publications sourced in the page right now. As for the "very limited scope of the subject's own writing", that's not a real argument. Tesla and electric vehicles is not a limited scope and doesn't affect the notability of the subject. Thewizardsmirror (talk) 18:52, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Thewizardsmirror (talk) 18:54, 27 December 2022 (UTC) — Thewizardsmirror (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

~~Keep Blackhawkeyes (talk) 19:02, 27 December 2022 (UTC)~~ Duplicate vote struck. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 15:49, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

keep 2601:6C0:8004:A8A0:B069:8AF3:DF80:3997 (talk) 19:08, 27 December 2022 (UTC) — 2601:6C0:8004:A8A0:B069:8AF3:DF80:3997 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep EVPeteJohnson (talk) 19:17, 27 December 2022 (UTC) — EVPeteJohnson (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting because there is at least one editor objecting to deletion and only a few supporting it. That said, the new multiple accounts suddenly appearing to object to deletion are obviously very suspicious and should be completely discounted for the closing.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 19:07, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. QRep2020 (talk) 19:49, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. The La Presse piece is solid and talks about him. Most of the other sources aren't useful for GNG, but the forbes(? I can't remember) one where he discusses Elon's covid "advice" would also count. Oaktree b (talk) 20:11, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Business Insider it was. Oaktree b (talk) 20:11, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What about integrating the content with Electrek as he is a founding member, etc.? QRep2020 (talk) 02:18, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The notability on that is almost less than for this person. It appears to be one of those branded sites that are part of a branding "farm" of sites, in this case bdg.com. There is one article that might be considered both reliable and significant for Lambert, Business Insider, but I really consider this all just a daisy chain of hype. I also note that some of our compatriots in this discussion seem to be deeply interested in only this topic. Users EVPeteJohnson and BlackHawkEyes have contributed only to this AFD and should probably be checked for socking. Delete Lamona (talk) 04:13, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:BASIC. The La Presse piece is an interview with nothing independent and is a puff profile. The Business Insider article is actually not about the person but about an article that person wrote which was critical of Elon Musk. And yeah, the SPA !votes who suddenly popped up are extremely suspicious. HighKing⁺⁺ 22:02, 4 January 2023 (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.