Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ruby Terrill Lomax

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 a trainwreck, since this appears to be some combination of a deletion and merge discussion. Merges are editorial decisions, not administrative ones, and don't require an AfD. In effect, no consensus exists to delete the articles, whether or not to merge them is an appropriate subject for the relevant talk pages. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 13:15, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Ruby Terrill Lomax and John Lomax III

Ruby Terrill Lomax (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Being married to someone notable, graduating with good grades, and co-founding a non-notable, defunct sorority being one of a dozen co-founders of a presumptively notable organization, do not automatically make one notable.

I am also nominating the following related page because being related to someone notable, having a successful but usual career in journalism, and having published a few non-notable books, do not make one notable:

John Lomax III (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Wikipedia is not a genealogy website. This nomination does not include Alan Lomax, who does appear to be independently notable. Basic information from both non-notable bios can be integrated back into John Lomax, from which they were forked and expanded in increasingly rambling family-history detail. Neither non-notable bio satisfies the primary notability criterion, as they do not cite multiple, independent, reliable sources. Copyright violation is also possible, as the material on all four of these people does not read like encyclopedia articles, but something written for a magazine or a bio profile in some other kind of publication, and in the case of John Lomax at least (still examining the others) was expanded massively all in one edit. Could be simply evidence of sandboxing, but... — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 22:27, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

• Keep Ruby, weak keep John III. Our biography is chatty and seems to have been taken from the public domain bio on the Library of Congress website, which includes stuff like the love letters, but having a biography page on the Library of Congress website is a pretty big indicator. Ruby was considered a full partner of John A. on his folk music expeditions, as the LoC title The John and Ruby Lomax 1939 Southern States Recording Trip suggests. Among other things, she is credited with the single-handed discovery of Blind Willie McTell. Her part may have been akin to that of a grad student on a research project, but the lasting importance of this particular project to American music is incalculable. As for John III, it seems that his books may be able to pass WP:BK although I was frsutrated by paywalls. --Dhartung | Talk 08:39, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

• Have to disagree strongly – the Lomaxes worked with the LoC for many years, so of course they have bios there, just like I have a bio at CryptoRights Foundation who I have worked with for years. Fails the "independent" requirement of the primary notability criterion. Strongly agree that the lasting importance of the project, which is covered in great detail at John Lomax, is highly signficant; that does not mean that everyone working on the project needs an independent bio article here. It is precisely because "her part may have been akin to that of a grad student on a research project" that we are here in AfD about this. For John III, not a single book of his has an article here, and finding any critical review of them, as you note, is difficult, so I think that the notability issue still stands, and he also fails the primary notability criterion, since the "sources" listed are mostly either family-related (i.e. non-independent) or of questionable reliability. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 22:05, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

• Your nomination doesn't accord her any role in the project whatsoever. Good faith means I assume from that you just hadn't read the material at all. Now you're disputing sources. So it isn't "precisely because" of her limited role. It is "precisely because" you said she hadn't done anything important. --Dhartung | Talk 03:05, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

• Huh? I haven't disputed anything the sources say; the only thing I've said about the sources was in the nomination to begin with, so I don't know what you mean by "now you're disputing sources". I've disputed that they are the sort required by WP:N from the start. Also, it's simply false that I said she had no role in the project. Please read what I actually write. :-) The point is that John Lomax (I) has an article that clearly establishes his notability, and the project itself is surely notable enough for an article, but not everyone who worked on the project is automatically notable, nor is everyone related to JL, and these two articles in particular badly fail the primary notability criterion. They were created as forks from the JL article to provide more family history detail than would reasonably fit in his own article, and it is just this sort of pointless genealogical article that WP:NOT#DIR addresses under its bullet point #2. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 00:41, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
• PS: Whether someone could possibly write a proper article about either of these article subjects isn't really the issue here. It hasn't been done yet, and both of the extant articles fail WP:N quite clearly. If you feel like doing the research to establish the notability of JLIII's books, or to rewrite the RTL article completely so as to establish notability, be my guest, but I don't see anyone raising their hand to attempt either of these. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 00:54, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

• Actually, it's not the case that both fail WP:N quite clearly, and saying so doesn't make it so, as disputes here demonstrate. Secondly, AFDs for notability are precisely about whether someone could possibly write a proper article about the subject. If they could, then the subject is notable. If they can't, then not. The style problems with the RTL article are not equivalent to "non-notable". --Lquilter (talk) 19:19, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

• Um, sorry, but yeah, it is clear. Primary notability criterion, from WP:N: Non-trivial coverage in multiple, independent, reliable sources. Not provided for either of these article subjects. That's just the way it is. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 03:58, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

• WP:N is clear that sources have to exist; not that they must already be in the article. Anyway, that aside, I found some stuff, and hopefully someone who has the time to hit the various relevant academic databases can check & give us some more definitive answer than Google Scholar. --Lquilter (talk) 04:19, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

• Keep There seems to be more than enough notability to pass muster. The article does beg for a rewrite to make it more Wiki-ish, but even as is, it is allowable. Jacksinterweb (talk) 15:53, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

ClarifyThe "keep" was for both noms.Jacksinterweb (talk) 15:53, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

• What "more than enough notability"? "Notability" means "coverage in multiple, independent, reliable sources", not "fame, notoriety or importance", and we don't have any evidence of such coverage here. The RTL article cites no sources at all, though is clearly based on the (non-multiple, non-independent, but probably reliable) bio at LoC. The JLIII article has multiple "sources", again not actually cited, just linked to as external links; the first is JLIII's own website, with is a conflict of interest and not a reliable source by WP's criteria; further it is nothing but a commericial link to JLIII's CD business and has nothing to do with the article on him; it must be deleted per WP:SPAM and WP:EL. The second is a 404 error, and appears to have a been a link to one of his books, at the publisher, and even if still valid would also be deleted per WP:SPAM. The fourth is simply online shopping search results for JLIII's books, and guess what? Yep, WP:SPAM again. And finally, the fourth is a newspaper article by his son, which is not about JLIII at all, and of no relevance to the article. So I repeat: What "more than enough notability"? None appears to be demonstrated at all. "Notability" doesn't mean "my subjective view of the article topic's importance". Cf. also WP:ILIKEIT. PS: I see that you've only been editing for a few months. You may wish to familiarize yourself in more detail with Wikipedia policies and guidelines like WP:N; some of them are fairly subtle, and their interplay can be more so. See also m:Inclusionism, m:Mergism and m:Deletionism. Wikipedia is pretty solidly mergist at this point, but you appear to be approaching AfD from an inclusionist perspective. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 00:41, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

COMMENT Please do not patronize me, or lecture me. I also would appreciate that you NOT ascribe a role to me because I disagreed with your conclusion. I am far from an inclusionist ( in fact, I fall somewhere in the middle of the spectrum). Quite frankly your hostility and rudeness baffles me, since I was neither confrontational nor combative in offering my opinion. I am familiar with the guidelines, but I don't seem to recall the guideline that says opinions may only be offered by veteran users, or only by those that agree with you. Until such a guideline appears, perhaps you might work on your own skills at dealing with people who dare to disagree with you, and that it might not be a deficit, just a different point of view. A little less arrogance and rudeness serves Wikipedia best. Jacksinterweb (talk) 05:40, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

What "hostility and rudeness"? I've suggested that you read WP:N and deletion policy more closely, because you appear to be making inclusionist arguments that having nothing to do with the primary notability criterion (the deletion rationale that has been given), and WP:ILIKEIT arguments for which there is a mountain of counter-precedent at AfD. There is no ill will in pointing this out, nor any "arrogance" or "patronizing". So, fine, you are a mergist, then, and know all about deletion policy. Why are you advocating inclusionist arguments, when the gist of this entire AfD is that WP:N has obviously not been satisfied, and the remedy here is to merge the actually encyclopedically salvageable information from these articles back into the John Lomax piece?

To be as clear as possible, in hopes of not somehow offending you again: Wikipedia:Notability calls for non-trivial coverage in multiple, independent, reliable sources. This has not been provided. Yet you argue that these two article subjects are somehow notable (in Wikipedia terms) anyway, and should be included on that vague basis, despite outright failure to satisfy WP's notability criteria; this appears to be an "I like it" inclusionist position, in which "notability" in the WP context is misconstrued as "subjective determinations of 'fame', 'importance' or 'notoriety' ", an interpretation that has not been in play at WP:N or related guidelines and policies since ca. 2005. So, this apparent position of yours and its conflict with what WP:N (and WP:DEL, other pages here where notability is addressed) actually say and mean is what I have asked you for clarification on, so please clarify instead of taking another opportunity to interpret my wording in the most hostile way possible for some reason. :-) — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 03:49, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

• Note to closing admin: This should probably be relisted for further input; when it was originally listed it was fairly near to the time that a new day's AfD log was coming, so few have actually read this. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 00:44, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

• ---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~~~~ Secret ^account 01:46, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

• Delete Ruby, no opinion on John. Ruby's article fails WP:V and WP:N, as explained by the nominator. TJ Spyke 02:34, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

The nominator's initial explanation, which was what you based your comments on, was amended later to correct a factual error. Does that affect your opinion? --Lquilter (talk) 05:10, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

• Keep Ruby, no opinion on John III. Ruby's music fieldwork appears notable, and although we don't seem to have an article on Delta Kappa Gamma Society International it appears to be a notable organization (whether it is currently active is irrelevant). Article does need reworking, but she appears to be notable. John has little to recommend him, except a few books authored, but I don't see those as particularly important without more research. bikeable (talk) 05:58, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete Ruby without prejudice, no opinion on John III. The Ruby article would need a complete rewrite, and it hasn't received one since this AfD started. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 06:35, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
• Keep both. I agree both articles should be somewhat rewritten but I also believe both persons are notable and articles should be kept. -- Darwinek (talk) 09:21, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
• Weak Delete without salt for Ruby, no evidence of notability, needs independant, reliable sources. - Mdsummermsw (talk) 20:17, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete John III. Read that lead: "John Lomax III was raised in Texas and is the grandson of pioneering folklorist John Lomax." "Raised in Texas" in the lead? Wha..? So his grandfather was notable (no argument). He isn't. Even if he represents Dead Ringer Band and has a son (who is his grandfather's great-grandson). - Mdsummermsw (talk) 20:17, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
• I found this entry branching from 'Joe Hickerson' and found it interesting and helpful for my research. Your own Delete Policy says "For example, information about family members of a celebrity who are not otherwise notable is generally included in, or merged into, the article on that celebrity" This suggests to me that the Ruby Lomax article should be merged with the John Lomax article. I have no opinion on the John III. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.50.134.247 (talk) 00:52, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

  Right; this is what I've been saying all along; this is not a "delete with extreme prejudice" AfD; it's a "preserve the actually verifiable information that is also actually encyclopedically relevant and isn't "genealogy site" cruft per WP:NOT, by merging it back into the John Lomax article from which it was forked, and then delete the articles. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 04:11, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

• Keep Ruby - no opinion on John III. Nominator is incorrect that the society (an academic professional society of educators, not a "sorority") she founded is defunct and non-notable; it is both notable and non-defunct. See http://www.deltakappagamma.net/ ; 150,000 members in an international organization. That alone would likely be sufficient notability, but she was also a dean and faculty member at UT Austin in the 1920s. For a woman to receive tenure ("associate professor") in the 1920s at a major university certainly signifies beyond the ordinary contributions. Additionally, I see 60+ cites at google books for her ([1]), and 9 cites at google scholar ("ruby terrill lomax"]) -- not bad for work done 90 years ago in an under-recognized field that was largely credited to her husband. --Lquilter (talk) 19:01, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

• My mistake; I have corrected the nomination. Doesn't change the AfD in any way; being one of a dozen co-founders of something notable does not automatically confer notability to anyone, and there still aren't multiple, independent, reliable sources for either article. That sources may exist doesn't mean that this particular attempt at an article should be retained, nor that the article subject is necessarily notable (until these alleged sources are examined it is unknown whether the coverage is non-trivial and whether the sources are reliable, since none of them have actually be cited here at all.) — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 03:49, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- Lquilter (talk) 19:05, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
• Comment - Note to admins: This has been going on for a while, but was unfortunately never publicized to academic list. Editors there have access to academic sources that would shed more light on academic notability of both these people. I'd suggest giving a chance to have some evidence of notability (or lack thereof) rather than solely opinions (some of which are based on false information, such as "defunct sorority"). --Lquilter (talk) 19:23, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

• Note: Fine by me; I already requested a re-listing above. I have no axe to grind here, I just feel that if one or both of these articles are viable they have to satisfy WP deletion policy, including WP:N. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 03:49, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

• Keep both on the basis of the notability as folklore collectors, as shown by the LC information. R.L. did the documentation for the most notable US folklore collection. J.L. III is a notable author in his own right: Nashville : music city USA is in 471 libraries according to WorldCat. DGG (talk) 04:45, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

• Comment: How many libraries it is in is of highly dubious relevance, since how it got there is very questionable. My own book may well be in that many libraries because the publisher sent them a free copy when sales slacked off and they had to unload the inventory, but that does not make me automatically notable enough for an article about me. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 04:59, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Do you have some reason to suspect it was a vanity publication or promotional distribution? The book was published by Abrams, which is a pretty reputable art/coffee table book publisher. --Lquilter (talk) 05:07, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I did not allege that it was either; you've missed the point. The point is that libraries obtain books in many, many ways, and do not outright purchase all of them, so the presence of a book in X number of libraries is no indication of anything other than that at least that many of them were printed! The Lomaxes themselves may have donated 200 copies to libraries, some foundation may have done so, the publisher may have done so, etc., etc. I.e., that particular number is of no value in establishing notability. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 05:46, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

In deletion discussions about academics we pretty routinely consider how wide-spread a modern book is. If it's in the collections of many major research universities that suggests research notability. I wouldn't assume donation unless there were some sort of evidence for that. Libraries look closely at donations because they don't want to prejudice the collections, and because every acquisition requires significant resources in processing. So unless there is some specific evidence to suggest funny donation, that's a rather extraordinary presumption. --Lquilter (talk) 22:47, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

yes, they are a major commercial publisher for this sort of subject. Libraries take free copies sent by publishers and discard them, or try to sell them to the public; no library nowadays has space to add junk to its collection. Certainly not NYPL Research division, Rutgers, Princeton, Stony Brook, U of Penn, Amherst, U. Mass, Cornell, Boston Public, Penn State, Dartmouth, Pittsburgh, and essentially every major academic and large public library, per WorldCat --and hundreds of smaller colleges and systems 19:14, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Of what relevance is this supposed to be? That a book is of interest to research libraries and is kept by a number of them does not automatically confer notability to the writer of the book. Let's assume for the sake of argument that 1,000,000 books qualify for the label "can be found in multiple research libraries". This does not mean that Wikipedia needs articles for the writers of every single one of those books! PS: I have not (nor has anyone else in this debate) labeled JLIII's books "junk", so your point appears to be a straw man argument. "Non-notable" and "junk" are not synonyms. To use myself as an example again: Someone could write an article about me and my work, and it might be AfD'd on notability grounds. If that AfD were successful in deleting the article about me on those grounds, this does not mean that I or my work are junk, only that they do not meet Wikipedia's notability criteria. I.e., there is no emotive battle going on here. Either the PNC in WP:N is satisfied, or it is not. From the facts about these articles to date, it is not. Period. There really is nothing else to it. No one or their work is being labeled "junk", so let's stop emoting about this. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 05:46, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

• Keep both - notability asserted in articles/by DGG above. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂0) 10:26, 31 January 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.