Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ernest M. Edsel

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 speedy delete, G11. Blueboy96 20:33, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Ernest M. Edsel

Ernest M. Edsel (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View log)

A new editor created this article as "part of a project to publish a centralized, free collection of in-depth information about people who have previously appeared in older or out-of-print editions of the "Who's Who" series by Marquis Publications. The remainder of the statement is on the article's talk page.

However, I do not believe Edsel meets WP:BIO. The ELs provided are either to articles that mention Edsel tangentially, as in "the lawyer for the group, Edsel" (as in the New York Times article) or do not mention him at all (as in the Dallas Business Journal article). There are some Lexis Nexis cases referenced but those are unavailable to persons without access to that database. There is an Ernest Edsel who wrote a book on diet, and I think it's the same guy but I can't be certain. The author Edsel is from Portland, Oregon, while our guy seems to be from Dallas. Google isn't any help either, with only 105 hits, and Google Books only returns the one book.

In addition, the article's creator, User:JudicialWatch, is showing some ownership on this article and has left some odd comments on the talk pages of an editor who added the {{likeresume}} tag to the article. There is an WP:ANI thread about his behavior.

Regardless of inclusion in a Who's Who book in the late 1980s or early 1990s, a biography should have reliable sources to reference. This article does not have them, so unless verifiable sources are found, the article should be deleted. KrakatoaKatie 04:00, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. This guy may be successful, but there are not enough reliable outside sources to make him notable. --Eastlaw (talk) 05:48, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

• Delete per above. In addition, the Marquis Who's Who is not as prestigious as the British Who's Who, and in fact is often considered borderline vanity due to it combining requests for information with book purchase "opportunities". My dad was in one, but I don't think it makes him notable. --Dhartung | Talk 06:11, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

• Delete for the reasons presented. Additionally, Marquis Who's Who is not a reliable source, due to reliance on unsourced assertions from the subjects. Heck, I was in a fairly recent edition of that publication, and I make no assertion of notability for myself. --Orange Mike | Talk 13:35, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
• Delete Subject is not significantly noted. I would also say, article content looks like a data dump CV of a successful business person. Gwen Gale (talk) 13:48, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per nom and others. All relevant points have already been made. Doctorfluffy (talk) 18:20, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per nom and others, we're not a resume hosting service. Coccyx Bloccyx (talk) 20:17, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
• Delete but the main Marquis WW publication, WW in America, is a borderline usable source, having reasonably high criteria for inclusion. Asa librarian, I'm accustomed to using it with caution & many libraries continue to recommend it. Their peripheral publications, like WW in Business and Finance, the one used here, have very low standards, and do not represent notability. I think the information in them is of the same nature as a personal website, usable for routine bio facts, but I wouldnt trust it for the importance of anyone's role in anything. DGG (talk) 20:25, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. Not notable.--Berig (talk) 20:29, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

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.