Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Harvey L. Bass (2nd nomination)

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. Sr13 00:57, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Harvey L. Bass

Harvey L. Bass (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Subject is not notable per WP:BIO; no reliable sources for article. Mwelch 01:06, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. No consensus in the first AfD, so trying again. This article is sourced only by the subject's family-provided obituary in the local newspaper. Lubbock Avalanche-Journal obituaries do not indicate notability, since anyone can have one; they don't indicate anyone other than the family found the subject to be notable. And they also are not reliably fact-checked. So they clearly are not WP:RS. Aside from that, this article has no other sources to verify its info about this man. Neither other listed "reference" in the article mentions the man in any way. Even if everything in the article is assumed to be correct, is the man notable? Well, two of the "keep" arguments in the previous debate were WP:POKEMON. So if an editor is convinced by WP:POKEMON, then I guess they can decided that yes, he's notable on that basis. Aside from that, though, there is nothing in the article that meets WP:BIO. Other "keep" votes in the first debate said he was notable "as a local individual". But with no press coverage to go along with that, that seems to go very much against the standards of WP:BIO. And even that aside, once again, the article offers no actual reliable sources for even such "local" notability. Whatever local importance he may seem to have had (not that I agree that even that is very much), we apparently have to just take his family's word for it. The author touts the subject having "won" a "major" Rotary award. This is again unsourced (other than by his obituary), but this time it doesn't matter, because the Paul L. Harris Fellow is, in fact, no such thing. Quoting from the Rotary International website: "Anyone who contributes — or in whose name is contributed — a gift of US$1,000 or more to the Annual Programs Fund may become a Paul Harris Fellow. . . . Donors are eligible for Paul Harris Fellow recognition when their cumulative giving reaches US$1,000." The flowery language used by the author ("won the coveted Paul Harris Fellow designation for outstanding community service") isn't supported by the organization's own description of the designation. There's no "winning" of the award and no "outstanding community service" necessary; just a check for $1000 will do. Mwelch 01:06, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

or 20 checks for $50 each over the years. DGG 02:43, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

• Delete see above. Mwelch, have you ever considered a career in journalism? --Whstchy 02:42, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Reply. What? And destroy my hard-earned reputation as a computer geek? Surely, you jest, sir!  ;-) Mwelch 16:19, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
• Comment one of the people using WP:POKEMON was a sockpuppet --Whstchy 03:33, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete While I'm sure he was a fine person and is missed very much by those who created the article in his memory, there doens't seem to be any notability here and Wikipedia is not a Memorial seems to apply to me. LaughingVulcan 03:51, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as accomplishment and living a full life are not notability. --Dhartung | Talk 06:56, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep notability is tenuous, but 'cult following' humorously suggests itself. Liveing a full life is not notable, but seventy odd years as a community leader, and editor of a community journal is. The bio positions, significantly, the local history. There has not been established that anything is wrong. DDB 08:27, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Actually, the charge has been raised twice, once above and once below, that there's only one source in existence here that is about this person, and it isn't either reliable or independent. You have not answered that, let alone refuted it. Your argument is a purely subjective judgement. Notability is not subjective. Uncle G 10:20, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - the Paul Harris award is effectively meaningless (700,000 recipients), and without that he's a minor local shopowner and chair of a local party committee. Of the three sources, two do not mention him at all, and the third is his obituary from the local paper — iridescenti (talk to me!) 09:14, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as even a supporter says, "notability is tenuous"DGG 04:05, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete notability is non-existent.Balloonman 04:18, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
• Comment Notability is indeed not subjective. Nor is the need to delete. Arguments of the type "I don't know what this is about, but in my opinion this isn't worthy" is not compelling to me. What I would find compelling is someone who knows why this does not meet the exacting standards of Wiki. Preferably someone who is knowledgeable of the person or locale. Otherwise it just looks like people are filling a quota, or exercising muscle or aligning for the possibility of future collaboration. DDB 12:07, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Reply. Not a single one of the deletion advocates has offered as their rationale "I don't know what this is about, but in my opinion this isn't worthy". So you're conveniently ignoring the arguments people have actually made, in favor of dismissing an argument that no one has made. Excellent example of a straw man, actually. The reason why this does not meet the standard is that the standard is "a topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." No one has offered any indication that this person has received significant coverage in any reliable source that is independent of him. That would pretty much be why. Mwelch 16:19, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Reply to DDB. In addition, the subject of the article is mentioned essentially as a politician, creative professional (editor,) (and local businessman,) following the sections of Notability (people). There is nothing in the article or sources to indicate that the subject satisfies any of those criteria, nor has there been a keep contribution to suggest that they are. "Local politician" does not meet WP:BIO, nor does having association with a local paper, nor does being a local businessman. As to 'Cult Following,' there is nothing in the article that I saw that suggested he is an Entertainer, which is the relevant section of notability for that criteria, nor has there been any evidence that he has a large following. The nom has stated one rationale: non-notability. I have previously stated that this article in its present form, closely resembling an obituary, appears to be a memorial, which Wikipedia is not. Finally, I'd appreciate your trying to assume good faith, which I'm not positive of in your last sentence.
  • Reply Please assume good faith. I feel there is a duty that an experienced editor has to explain as well as expedite. I'm not saying you are doing the wrong thing. However, I am trying to show you why it is said that the best editors are never noticed. Talent is something that acts on a whim, whereas the editor is someone who is often at their best when they fail to act. Should an article require deletion, it should be fait accompli. It shouldn't be the case that editors might joke about the frustrations they have caused creators, as I have recently read. Please don't take that personally, but accept it in the spirit of one who shares a journey in common. DDB 08:35, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment OK, I will certainly assume good faith. Explanation is exactly what I'm seeking, as I cannot see where any of the above of what you have stated is occurring or applies to this case. Someone who is knowledgeable of the person or locale should certainly be involved in editing the article to bring it up to notability standards, and/or explaining why the person meets notability in a non-subjective fashion. But as I understand it, the burden is upon proving notability when a lack of it is demonstrated. To me, that lack has been shown, and I haven't yet read anything that suggests it has been met. It appears to be fait accompli to me, unless any persuasive reason to keep can be shown. At any rate, I appreciate your willingness to share your experience and rationale. LaughingVulcan ^{Laugh With Me / Logical Entries} 14:54, 26 May 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.