Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/J.E. Airhart
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. Sr13 01:05, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
[edit] J.E. Airhart
Subject is not notable per WP:BIO; there are no reliable sources provided by the article Mwelch 00:42, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
- Delete. Subject's entire claim to notability is being a county commissioner in a 15,000 person county. WP:BIO quite explicitly excludes such local figures if they haven't received significant press coverage. The article offers no press coverage for this individual. Virtually the entire article is sourced by his and his wife's family-provided obituaries in the local newspaper. No indication of notability, since anyone who's family wants an obit run can have an obit run in the Lubbock Avalanche-Journal. Nothing to reliably verify the claims in the article, since such obits aren't fact-checked. The other listed "references" tell us nothing more than that the man existed and supported the Children's Home of Lubbock. Mwelch 00:42, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
- Delete, the existing sources barely (if even that) even support the article. Notability isn't high enough to be in a Wikipedia article. *Cremepuff222* 01:48, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
- DeletePer WP:BIO, and WP:N.Shindo9Hikaru
- Delete It seems undecided to what extent we go by available sources , and to what extent by some intrinsic N as indicated in subject-specific guidelines. He fails by both. There are no RSs other than trivial ones. And local roads commissioner is NN intrinsically. BH should apply his admittedly great skill to writing a book, instead of writing these articles here. DGG 02:39, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
- Delete in accordance with WP:BIO and WP:N. Acalamari 02:56, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
- Delete as notability does not derive automatically from accomplishments. --Dhartung | Talk 06:58, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
- Keep just being an elected official is not sufficient, but thirty years is substantial, and contributes to the history of the locale, also explains and positions politics of the day. DDB 08:12, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
- Delete this type of figure is specifically & explicitly excluded by WP:BIO. Aside from the obituary, this article is completely unsourced, and there's nothing in the article to indicate any more notability than any other minor public figure in a minor area. Has someone taken a dislike to Billy today? That's the third one so far today — iridescenti (talk to me!) 09:20, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
- Comment I don't know who Billy is. The wording of WP:BIO is not as explicit as has been suggested with this case. The need to delete the article has not been established. The argument of 'not knowing, but not feeling generous' is logically fallacious. I'm assuming there is no quota for deletions and that this isn't an exercise in editorial muscle. I would find compelling an argument based on knowledge .. of the person or locale. My record will show that I don't merely oppose deletions, nor support them, no matter who posted them. DDB 12:16, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
- Comment. I wouldn't presume that you merely support oppose based on who posted, and I'm quite confident that iridescenti was also not suggesting that about you. The "taken a dislke to Billy" comment was more directed at me, and was an in joke for those of us who are familiar with the work of Billy Hathorn, the author of this article. He has in the past indicated that he takes personally the many articles he's had nominated for deletion. So it's to that, not to your opinions, that the comment was referring. I don't doubt your good faith in asserting your opinion, and I don't think iridescenti was at all intending to doubt your good faith either. For the record though, the argument is not "I don't feel generous". The argument is "the article cites exactly zero — count 'em, zero — non-trivial independent reliable sources about this man". Mwelch 16:35, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
- Comment Thanks for the clarification. I have some sympathy for Billy's predicament. Personally, I'm a conservative, and would cheerfully delete those three articles on taste alone. However, I believe some editors are acting poorly and maneuvering posters into deletion referrals. A vice that is being applied by some involves either questioning the notability of a target, or, of accusing a target of original research. Assertions of plaigarism are easy and easy to obfuscate. Maybe these three articles need to be deleted, but there is a rush to judgement of which I'm wary. I'm not convinced by the argument, which I feel close to bullying, that goes 'I don't see why .. therefore I will delete.' DDB 21:17, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
- Comment. I wouldn't presume that you merely support oppose based on who posted, and I'm quite confident that iridescenti was also not suggesting that about you. The "taken a dislke to Billy" comment was more directed at me, and was an in joke for those of us who are familiar with the work of Billy Hathorn, the author of this article. He has in the past indicated that he takes personally the many articles he's had nominated for deletion. So it's to that, not to your opinions, that the comment was referring. I don't doubt your good faith in asserting your opinion, and I don't think iridescenti was at all intending to doubt your good faith either. For the record though, the argument is not "I don't feel generous". The argument is "the article cites exactly zero — count 'em, zero — non-trivial independent reliable sources about this man". Mwelch 16:35, 23 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.
