This article is within the scope of WikiProject California, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of California on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This article is related to WikiProject Schools, a collaborative effort to write quality articles about schools around the world. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject San Diego, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics related to San Diego and San Diego County on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
The second change in question can be viewed here. Additionally Carl Lewis passes WP:POLITICIAN, and thus the individual should be re-added as well.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 18:53, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
I will attempt to address the removals as separate events, as the reasoning was different for each.
The first removal (which I made) was to remove unsourced entries that appeared at the time to be living persons. As a policy, BLP takes precedence over LINKROT which is a practice. The names were removed while performing other cleanup to conform with WP:WPSCH/AG#WNTI. In the case of the removed names, specifically:
"School articles should specifically not include: Any mention (including lists) of current or former pupils, parents of current or former pupils, administrative staff, school secretaries, teachers (naming the head teacher is permitted), etc., unless supported by reliable sources, and even then conforming to our biography of living persons policy;
My removal was reverted and I left the names pending later review for sources.
The second removal can be sumarized by the above quote, WP:BIO1E, WP:NOTMEMORIAL, and WP:NLIST. Entries in the list must be of verifiable notability. I have not reviewed the new sources provided, and I do not have a recommendation regarding WP:N or WP:GNG for those entries and sources. If this remains an open question, I may review those sources in the future.
WP:IAR is simply that "[i]f a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it." In this case, the above policies and guidelines do not prevent improving WP. I recommend that editors establish notability from reliable sources before readding the entries. --Tgeairn (talk) 19:24, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
Lewis is more borderline (given the coverage of the scandal he was involved with and his untimely death), but the two fallen soldiers are not. It's pretty standard for serviceman to have significant local obituary coverage after their deaths, but per WP:MEMORIAL, Wikipedia:BIO1E#People_notable_for_only_one_event, and WP:NOTNEWS, those don't pass muster for inclusion. I'll respect whatever consensus is arrived at in this case. OhNoitsJamieTalk 19:26, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
Regarding Lewis, the provided sources exist only as a result of the criminal accusation. WP:POLITICIAN requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject of the article" for local politicians, and unless there are additional sources available that bar is not met. --Tgeairn (talk) 19:34, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
As far as Charles Lewis is concerned (not Carl), the solution to this argument is to write an article about him. I will take a look at doing that in the next day or two. I'm sure there is a ton of coverage about him; we have found that virtually all city council members in the nation's eighth largest city are notable. Once he has an article meeting Wikipedia standards, then he obviously belongs in this list, Q.E.D. --MelanieN (talk) 21:27, 7 July 2012 (UTC)