Mordantkitten

Regarding the entry Clyde Lewis

1 Disclosure of relationship to article's subject.

2 Statement of explanation for "Delete" vote.

For tl;dr, see the section with the bolded text.

Yes: I know Clyde Lewis. I've known him since 2002. We are friends.

Yes: I put the article up, in 2005. I didn't write the first incarnation; after having been asked more than once, by people who didn't know how to edit Wikipedia, why Clyde didn't have a page, I said that if they wanted to write one, I'd format and post it. They did, and I did. It was 13 years ago; none of us understood about disclosure, objectivity, sources for citation, etc. If I had, I wouldn't have gotten involved. Something wanted done, I knew how...so I did. It was a piece of crap, not at all up to standards even for 2005, and all I can say in our defense is that we were going by how other talk show hosts' pages were written and formatted at the time. Times have changed, and so have those pages.

In 2007, the page was up for deletion. I found some secondary sources and rewrote it myself. I can't say it was that much improved, but it met the guidelines at the time. I used to go in and tweak it. Eventually, though, I learned that I was too close to the subject to edit objectively. I stopped editing almost entirely, fixing mechanics sometimes, and removing two malicious false statements about Clyde having died.

When the section "Political Positions and Views" was added, containing primary sourcing and subjective phrasing, I tried once to remove it. It was reverted, and I saw no point in having a reversion war.

I've been informed very recently that I should have disclosed my proximity to the subject on the talk page from the beginning. No point in doing it now, as the page is up for deletion again.

Practically and objectively, I agree that the subject is not notable enough at this time to warrant an article. There are no recent, and no relevant, secondary sources. Notability, for almost any personality in the genre, tends to be word-of-mouth and that is not sufficient. I have been unable to find a secondary source suitable for this article beyond the considerably outdated ones currently cited.

Primary sources are not acceptable, and at one time I considered removing the primary-sourced statements from the article, not in one block but selectively, leaving the statements that cite a secondary source. But others' attempts at revising the article to bring it within standards have been reverted, without fail. I see no reason to assume that anyone else will ever be permitted to edit this article, in a way not to the liking of the author of that part of the article, without resistance and/or reversion. The editing history demonstrates this several times over. Delete.

Welcome to my user page. I've been around since 2005 and got tired of seeing my name in red instead of blue, so here you are.