Talk:Bradley Haddock

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Portal:Biography
 Biography Portal
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article. [FAQ]
Scouting Wiki Project Bradley Haddock is part of the Scouting WikiProject, an effort to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Scouting and Guiding on the Wikipedia. This includes but is not limited to boy and girl organizations, WAGGGS and WOSM organizations as well as those not so affiliated, country and region-specific topics, and anything else related to Scouting. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
High This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale.

[edit] speedy deletion

The discussion of this speedy deletion is at Wikipedia:Speedy deletionRlevse 02:50, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Since the tag was changed, I've pasted the notices left there to here:
  • disagree with deletion This is clearly notable and was only one hour old before it was tagged for speedy. Give it a chance. Rlevse 02:12, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
  • disagree with deletion No reason noted for deletion. Article is clearly marked as a stub. Text of article clearly shows that the subject is notable. --Gadget850 ( Ed) 02:38, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
  • disagree with deletion per Gadget. --evrik 04:05, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
  • agree with deletion I originally listed this article for deletion. It is not the job of Wikipedians to find reasons for keeping an article. Text shows no significant notability. Subject is one of probably dozens of VP's at a large company. He is also a Distinguished Eagle Scout. While both are admirable, neither is particularly notable. Ditto the fact that he is a lawyer. Big man on his block maybe, notable on a Wikipedia level? No more than any other VP of a big company. Success stories of Eagle Scouts does not necessarily equal notability. I understand that there are people online here (apparently everyone else that has posted to this discussion) that are trying to get a lot of Eagle Scouts that have become successful businessmen or have helped out the Eagles as adults onto Wikipedia. Eagle Scout is a wonderful thing for an adolescent to achieve. He should probably be listed on Eagle Scout websites. But if you google the man, the Silver Buffalo award is ALL he is listed for and not many hits at all for that. Sorry boy scout fans, Not-Notable.Dipics 03:41, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
  • disagree with deletion He is Chairman of the National Committee of the Order of the Arrow. This is a significant position within the Boy Scouts of America. --Jdurbach 04:10, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
  • disagree with deletion. The awards given to him for his work with Scouting are much greater than indicated by Dipics above and they demonstrate notability. User Rlevse is carefull about which Scouting people he writes articles about. At the very least this should not be a speedy deletion, but should be moved to AfD where it can be discussed over time and where the author can have time to expand the article. --Bduke 04:12, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Commment Only about 0.01% (about 1300 total) Eagle Scouts IN THE ENTIRE HISTORY OF BSA have ever been awarded the Distinguished Eagle Scout Award. That alone make him notable. Bduke makes an excellent point. Dipics does not understand the significance of this man's accomplishments. Articles need more than one hour (all Dipics allowed after creation and before tagging for speedy) to get fleshed out. Rlevse 10:50, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Commment This from wikipedia on Notability "A topic has notability if it is known outside a narrow interest group or constituency, or should be because of its particular importance or impact. It is an extension of the notion of prominence for biographical articles. It differs, however, from fame and importance; while all articles on "famous" and "important" subjects are notable, not all notable subjects are famous or important." I'm afraid that an Eagle Scout award, which seems to be the significant criteria mentioned here for notability, is really only known inside the narrow constituency of Boy Scouts. I will probably be outvoted here and that's fine. But I also suspect that someone is calling out all the old boy scouts and getting them to vote. Tell me, would a man in charge of a national committee on the Rotary Club be notable because of that? In my humble opinion well, no. Be honest, ask youselves, what has this man done that would qualify him as notable OUTSIDE of the world of Boy Scouts? If nothing (and there is nothing in the article or on Google), then he is non-notable per the notability criteria. Be honest with yourselves, what is this man notable for OUTSIDE of the boyscouts? If nothing (and, per the article itself and Google, it is nothing) then he is non-notable.Dipics 13:59, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
  • agree with deletion I did a google search on this person and the only thing that came up were a few Boy Scout related hits. Not Notable per the Wikipedia article on notability.Beaner1 14:32, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
NOTE ON BEANER1 account: Per Interiot's edit tool, account WAS JUST CREATED TODAY and is likely a sock puppett as its ONLY TWO EDITS are to this article! Nice try. See stats from Interiot's tool: Username Beaner1

Total edits 2 Distinct pages edited 1 Average edits/page 2.000 First edit 14:31, 17 June 2006

(main) 0 Talk 2

    • Comment By the logic of the above two entries, if one must be famous outside a narrow area to be on wiki then 90% of the chemists, scientists, educators, etc on wiki (I just checked) and should be deleted because they're here on wiki precisely because they are noted in their area and not outside of it. Look at a list of these other groups on wiki and you will only recognize a small handfull of the names. Haddock isn't just a lawyer/businessman who is the OA chairman, he has the DESA and Silver Buffalo awards and those are very elite and distinctive groups.

Rlevse 15:29, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

    • Comment First, I find it hard to believe that you checked 90% of the chemists, scientists etc... Second, it doesn't say that you must be famous at all, much less outside your area. Actually, it specifically says "not all notable subjects are famous or important". What it also says (as I quoted above) is "A topic has notability if it is known outside a narrow interest group or constituency, or should be because of its particular importance or impact." If a chemist is famous among chemists, it is likely because he or his work has had a significant impact in the world outside of chemistry, even if those of us that are ignorant of chemistry (and I sadly count myself in this group) are ignorant of this. For example, I have no idea who invented the modern petroleum cracking process. However, it seriously impacts all of us. But honestly, what impact does DESA or the Silver Buffalo award have outside of scouting? It is ONLY of interest in a narrow constituency (Scouting). And, that is why it (and, IMHO Mr. Haddock) is non-notable.Dipics 16:02, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment"If a chemist is famous among chemists, it is likely because he or his work has had a significant impact in the world outside of chemistry"--that's quite a leap. And yes, I did check the lists. Rlevse 16:06, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment If you find a chemist that has not made contributions that do not have impact outside the world of chemistry. That has not created processes etc. that affect people outside of his area of expertise, then you should delete him. Which chemists specifically have you found that meet this criteria? I do find it pretty funny that you are claiming to have researched all the chemists, scientists, educators etc. on wikipedia. So far your argument boils down to "He may not be notable per Wikipedia standards but there are others that aren't either". If you find them, delete them, but this STILL doesn't make Mr. Haddock (and I have nothing against him personally obviously) notable.Dipics 16:37, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Commentby that same logic, any dedicated Scout leader, which Haddock obviously is, has had a huge impact outside of Scouting by the positive impact he's had on hundreds, if not thousands of lives. I think we've both said most of what there is to say at this point, we're starting to just spin wheels. Rlevse 16:41, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
  • disagree with deletion, not certain that Dipics has the cache to determine what is notable or not, having been on the Wikipedia all of about 10 minutes. There are Wikipedians who create, and those who just critique that which others have created. Chris 19:32, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
  • disagree with speedy deletion. It is highly recommended that someone starts to add some serious information to the article to clearly show that he earns a wikipage of his own. If within a couple of days, nothing is added beyond earning some award, then I would agree with deletion though. Wim van Dorst (Talk) 19:39, 17 June 2006 (UTC).
  • Comment Probably my final comment here. Just to note two small things. Nobody has yet even made any attempt to show how this man is notable outside of the "Narrow interest group" of scouting. Second, it seems that everyone that thinks that this article should be kept are all keenly interested in scouting (and likely attracted to this non-notable article through the "call for help" on the WikiProject Scouting page). Seems to support the fact that he is only notable to that narrow interest group. As to whether or not I have the "cache" to determine notability, I have recommended for speedy delete over 500 articles. All but about a dozen have been deleted. Seems a decent record, does it not? Now, about Mr, Haddock, there are people that are notable on a encyclopedic scale, and there are people that are just notable to a small interest group. The former is Wikipedia fodder, the latter, per the article I cited above, is not. This person falls in the latter group IMHO. Dipics 04:34, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
    • CommentThat's a lot of gall referring to a call for help when you made a sockpuppett. Rlevse 22:58, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment One of our problems here is that Silver Buffalo is not a good article. To the BSA (all 3.4 million current members, and at least as many former members), the Silver Buffalo is comparable to the Presidential Medal of Freedom. Haddock's achievements are comparable to any of the others who have been awarded the Silver Buffalo and DESA.
Notability is a guideline. The sections quoted above are very argumentive when pulled out of the complete guideline, but loose quite a bit of power when considered in the full context.

--Gadget850 ( Ed) 00:49, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

    • Comment Apparently I need to make at least one more comment. I didn't make a "sockpuppet". I have no reason to. My objections stand on their own. And, while it is obviously true that Notability is a guideline, I don't see how I pulled anything out of context. Under which part of that guideline would this article qualify as notable? None that I can find. But the section that I quoted addresses the notability of the article directly. So far, the arguments still run "But, he is important to Boy Scouts". "A topic has notability if it is known outside a narrow interest group or constituency." This one is not. Dipics 02:50, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../b/r/a/Talk%7EBradley_Haddock_abc6.html"