Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/George A. Borgman

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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 delete, still does not pass the threshold of notability for inclusion on Wikipedia, i.e. by providing <stress>multiple, reliable and independent</stress> sources on the subject. Keep arguments are unimpressive. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 14:25, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] George A. Borgman

George A. Borgman (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

This entire article appears to eb sourced from a single entry in a single book. It has also served as a vehicle for links to Eric Bruno Borgman, whose vanity spamming campaign seems unlikely ever to end. Guy (Help!) 07:53, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete. Who's Who and IMDB? That's it for sources? Neither is, frankly, indicative of much at all. I was going to nominate the whole Eric Borgman/Michael Legge walled garden in one swell foop, but this is a good start. --Calton | Talk 08:34, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
  • IMDB especially is not indicative, since entries there asre generally submitted in the first instance by their subjects. Guy (Help!) 10:21, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak keep The two prev nominations were first, no consensus, and 2nd keep. The source that would indicate N is The Mississippi Rag if it is as N as the WP article on it claims. Or is that part of the walled garden also? As source for supplementary details, we use IMdB all the time, though not to establish notability. DGG 02:09, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Or is that part of the walled garden also? Of course, as the slightest glance at the brief contribution history of that article's creator would tell you, given how many of his/her edits were used to insert references to Eric Borgman and his work. Creating an article at The Mississippi Rag helps prop up the claim of notability for Borgman, and seems to have worked with you. And, as you say, IMdB establishes nothing. --Calton | Talk 09:56, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
Please AGF-- My query was intended to get someone to explain the relationship--just as you did. DGG 23:55, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. To quote a participant in the first AFD "If he is notable enough for a Wikipedia article, then almost everyone who has made his living as a journalist for more than a few years will be about as notable." Is wikipedia really the place for an article on every columnist for every publication in the world? The Borgman Promotional Commitee here at wikipedia has gone to great lengths to stress the importance of George and his family, but when it comes down to it, he's a guy who has written a bunch of columns on jazz and has appeared in some movies his son made. Hardly terribly notable. He's been listed in "Who's Who", but Who's Who is practically a joke. I'm curious if any of the other hundreds of people who must have written for the Mississippi Rag and other such publications over the years have articles. I'm guessing not. so why this guy then? -R. fiend 18:16, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
    • Examining the Mississippi Rag article, I see that of the more than 100 "fine" contributing writers and photographers, only 3 others appear to have articles: Chip Deffaa, who writes for the substanitally more notable New York Post and is the author of numerous books (still a borderline case and a poor article); Butch Thompson, a musician (his articles doesn't even mention "The Rag"); and Ray Avery, a photographer whose work has appeared on the covers of numerous albums (again, no mention of "the Rag"). Borgman is the exception, as his inclusion is based solely on his columns for what is now a online publication. Maybe the other hundred contributors need a group of wikipedians hell-bent on promoting them to sort of balance, but I'm thinking that's not the way to go. -R. fiend 21:53, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. I am not a big jazz fan but the person is verifiable and notable and I believe the article should stay. Frankly it shouldn't even have been renominated since the last vote was to keep it! Sources are the magazines that the writer has written for as well as album liner notes for various artists including Neville Dickie. Plank 22:57, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment surviving a trip to AfD does not provide a lifetime warranty on an article. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 03:04, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
      • The magazines the writer has written for aren't sources for anything other than entries on a CV. Verifiability in this case boils down to "existing carbon-based lifeform". --Calton | Talk 09:56, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. Borgman is no doubt a good journalist, but after three years of editing on this topic for the only substantive reference material on the person being from IMDB and Who's Who is a clear indication that he does not meet the minimum notability criteria for inclusion as described in the "special cases" section of WP:BIO, which specifically includes journalists among other creative professionals. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 03:04, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep, seems to just pass WP:BIO muster. Gateman1997 16:14, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 16:39, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete - being a journalist for a notable paper isn't enough unless he's done something important as part of it, any more than being a soldier who fought in a famous battle makes you automatically notable yourself. Nothing in this article to suggest he's done anything more in his life than anyone else. Also seems to be sourced entirely from his personal website. - iridescent (talk to me!) 17:50, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. Journalists are part of the 'special cases' of WP:BIO, and this guy doesn't meet any of them, meaning he is not notable enough to deserve an article. As far as I can find out/see, he isn't widely cited by his peers as being an expert in his field, he hasn't come up with a new concept etc., his work has been the main subject of an independent book/film and is hasn't received significant critical attention. Ale_Jrbtalk 18:14, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per Ale_Jrb. To me, the fact that there have been two previous votes actually argues more for deletion than for keeping it. It means this issue — that the article doesn't really cite anything substnative that verifies the notability it ascribes to him — has been spotlighted twice before, and still no one has been able to produce anything of such substance. That's telling me there probably is nothing to cite. Even if the The Mississippi Rag itself meets notability standards (and since its article is sourced solely by the The Mississippi Rag's own website, I'd say that even on that point, the jury is still out), I'm still failing to see how writing reviews for it is sufficient in the absence of any evidence that those reviews are particularly influential. Mwelch 00:08, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
Borgman is a contributing editor. He writes articles and does research on musicians and bands he is not just a reviewer. He does not just write for the Mississippi Rag. His articles have become sources for music encyclopedias and books. He has conrtributed stories and has a column and done reviews consistently over the years. He is not a sometimes writer or reviewer for the paper like Calton will have you think. Plank 12:36, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
Comment. That he's written consistently for The Mississippi Rag is not yet all that impressive when, as I mention, at this point no sources have been cited that demonstrate that A) The Mississippi Rag is particularly notable itself; or B) that even if it is, Borgman's writing has been influential. I'm not saying that the paper is definitely not notable, nor that his writing is definitely not influential. Just that none of those who are making those claims have yet to provide any independent sources whatsoever to verify them. If his articles have been sources for music encyclopedias and books, then by all means, that's terrific. So then please cite what music encyclopedias and books are sourced from his work. That would be a pretty decent establishment of his notability. Right now, all we have is several keep voters saying, "Trust me, he's notable." Mwelch 18:49, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
Ragging It: Getting Ragtime Into History (and Some History Into Ragtime) by H. Loring White, 2005, uses George A. Borgman’s articles on Joseph Lamb as sources for his book. This is just one I could easily come across and is by no means suggestive that this is the only instance of his works being used by historians and researchers as a reference. Plank 16:39, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
That's something, I suppose, but it does lead me to believe he's less notable than H. Loring White and his book Ragging It: Getting Ragtime Into History (and Some History Into Ragtime), as he's merely one of what I can assume are dozens or hundreds of people referenced in its footnotes. I'm not of the opinion that anyone used as a source in any book ever written is encyclopedic. Especially when that book has an amazon sales rank of nearly 2 million [1]. Millions of people have written books. Millions more are referenced in those books. I don't think belonging to either one of those groups is in itself notable. -R. fiend 20:45, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
Well, alright! Now, we're getting somewhere. Can we get that and the other such references you can easily find into the article? If there are indeed a substantial number of such citations, I imagine that adding them to the article would put an end to these recurring debates over his notability. Mwelch 06:21, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. Notable enough for me. Paul August ☎ 13:43, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Borgman is a jazz historian and writer. The Mississippi Rag is an elite traditional jazz journal in a field of very few. The American Rag is its chief competitor. The subject Borgman has written many articles on musicians and bands, conducted interviews and written liner notes for CD's of notable musicians. His work is being cited by other jazz historians and reseachers. This is notability! Billions 14:46, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
    • Note: probable sockpuppet account. -R. fiend 21:22, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Notability around here is having been the subject of multiple non-trivial coverage in reliable independent sources. Feel free to add those sources, the article could use them. Guy (Help!) 16:13, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment. If his work is being cited by jazz historians and researchers, then yes, that's an excellent argument in favor of his notability. So why is it that, despite many requests, none of those saying this have yet to specify which works by historians and researchers, which books, and which encyclopedias these all are that are so actively citing his work? If he's truly cited all over the place like this, then providing specific examples thereof should be a trivial exercise, should it not? Mwelch 18:49, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
Ragging It: Getting Ragtime Into History (and Some History Into Ragtime) by H. Loring White uses George A. Borgman’s articles on Joseph Lamb as sources for his book. This is just one I could easily come across and is by no means suggestive that this is the only instance of his works being used by historians and researchers as a reference. Plank 16:44, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. Appears to meet the standards for inclusion. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:10, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Appears to? Whose standards? Where are the independent sources? I love jazz, but it's really tough for jazz subjects to qualify in Wikipedia because of the lack of independent sources - most jazz people are more interested in playing than writing about it. Guy (Help!) 16:13, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Passes minimum threshold for notability. Guy, your actions are getting questionable here. Please pull back for your own good. - Denny (talk) 16:26, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
Comment Much as it pains me to agree (I think for the first time ever) with Guy, he's right - this article has no sources whatsoever other than the subject's own website, which can't be taken as a reliable source. It's not like jazz is some ultra-obscure field - there are plenty of reputable publications which, if this bio isn't padded, would certainly cover him. The "keep" voters can't just go by "well, he sounds like he's probably important" - find some kind of source for it. - iridescent (talk to me!) 16:48, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. Zero secondary reliable sources. —Cryptic 17:56, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment: Iridescent is exactly right. If AFD is a discussion, not a vote, then the people who are voting to keep (some of whom are here through canvassing) really need to address some of the issues brought up. "Notable enough for me", "Appears to meet the standards for inclusion", "Passes minimum threshold for notability" don't mean much of they can't be backed up. Go to WP:BIO and show us which which criterion under "Creative professionals" this guy meets. About the only one who's tried to make a strong case is Plank, and his assertion that "He writes articles and does research on musicians and bands" makes him just what most of us have been saying he is: your typical journalist. (By the way, the argument that this passed its 2nd AFD with a "keep" is a spurious argument, as the second nomination appears not to have been made in good faith by a rather dubious user; he gave no valid reason for deletion, which is not to say no such reason existed. The first AFD was legit and worth referring to, and the result was pretty close.) Not that it is necessarily relevant, but it should be pointed out that the article was started by the subject's son in his long standing efforts to get himself and his family mentioned on every wikipedia page possible, and about the only other contributor of substance is an editor whose obsession with the Borgman family is such that I cannot believe that he is not one of them, or a close friend of some sort. Where are the secondary sources? Why is this guy any more notable than any of the hundreds of thousands of peope out there who write columns for all sorts of publications? -R. fiend 14:20, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
Reply to R. fiend: WP:BIO is a guideline, it is not meant to be determinative. Ultimately determinations of notability are a matter of community consensus, my contribution to that consensus, in this case, is that this person meets my standards for notability, hence "Notable enough for me". And speaking of "spurious" arguments, it does not matter how I found my way to this discussion (unless you make the assumption that I am contributing here in bad faith) nor does it matter that the second AfD nomination was made by a "dubious user" who "gave no valid reason" (unless you make the bad faith assumption that the participants in that discussion failed to make an informed and independent judgment), nor does it matter by whom or why the article was written, nor does it matter that there may be other more notable people who do not yet have articles (unless you assume that articles are created in order of notability), and finally that he may not be a notable journalist does not mean he is not a notable jazz journalist. One last thing I don't think it is useful to characterize contributers to this discussion as "hell-bent". Paul August ☎ 15:17, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
To be honest the only people who seem obsessed with all things Borgman is you R. fiend and your newest best friend Guy. "Hell-bent" does, however, seem fitting to describe the actions of fiend for the last two years, perhaps it's name reflective. Plank
Well, I wouldn't say I'm "hell bent" on ridding wikipedia of promotional material, but it is an active interest of mine. That I admit. And someone's been writing articles on every Borgman in the world (and including some of them in every other article imaginable), and if you check the edit histories it certainly isn't me. Nor is it Guy. -R. fiend 20:50, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
Oh, and incidentally, I didn't describe anyone in this discussion as "hell-bent" on anything. -R. fiend 21:07, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
No you didn't directly, but the implication in your comment was that there was a "group of wikipedians hell-bent on promoting" Borgman, which, again by implication, would include any one in favor of keeping this article. Paul August ☎ 22:25, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
No, it wouldn't necessarily. While I may not agree with those who are voting to keep, there is a clear distinction between them and the one or two people and their army of sock/meat-puppets (who are surprisingly absent from this discussion) who have for years been actively trying to get Eric Bruno Borgman and anything related to him into wikipedia. Even Plank, who has been a bit active in the Borgman arena, I believe is doing it out of his inexplicable, but sincere, devotion to the works of Michael Legge. That Borgman is one of the faces associated with him is somewhat of a coincidence. Looking through the edit histories of an array of articles (many now deleted) will give some indication of who the hellbenders are. -R. fiend 01:10, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
Yes, not "necessarily", that's the point of Intimation and innuendo. Paul August ☎ 01:34, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Why has this article been listed for deletion? It's well referenced and its subject has an entry in Who's Who. This just doesn't make sense. --Tony Sidaway 23:08, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment Here is a quote from jazz reviewer Pat Hawes form the November 2002 Jazz Journal in regards to Any Time, "It comes with a small booklet with masses of useful information about the tunes, Clarence Williams, and the participating musicians, compiled by jazz authority George A. Borgman." He is considered a "jazz authority" by someone who writes for another jazz publication. That is high praise and also substanciates that he is notable in his field of traditional jazz journalism. Plank 16:52, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment. Indeed, if he's recognized by other jazz writers from publications that are independent of The Mississippi Rag, that does help to argue to his notability. This — stuff that can be cited to something other than his own (possibly self-written or edited) bio in that ridiculous Who's Who in America — is the exact kind of information that needs to be in the article.Mwelch 06:21, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
      • Comment. Agreed; this is they type of reference that contributes to establishing notability of the subject of a biographical article. The primary citation should be to the article in Jazz Journal; the link provides access to the content otherwise not available online, but the primary citation would be to the original published source. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 23:57, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per all. Arbustoo 00:16, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose no keep deleted per all. --C S (Talk) 22:02, 16 April 2007 (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.