Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Whip Jones

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.

[edit] Whip Jones

The result was Relist. Between an additional article being added to this nomination partway through, then removed partway later, then the article being rewritten (after which half the participants changed their opinions to neutral yes, that really helps a closing admin determine consensus), not to mention the discussion going on for four pages, this AfD clearly needs to be redone. No sane person can figure out at a glance what went on here, and I'm beginning to meep and gibber a bit myself. Hang on, and I will relist the nomination on today's section, afresh. AnonEMouse (squeak) 17:15, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

  ATTENTION!

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on a forum, please note that this is not a majority vote, but rather a discussion to establish a consensus among Wikipedia editors on whether a page is suitable for this encyclopedia. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines to help us decide this, and deletion decisions are made on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

Nonetheless, you are welcome to participate and express your opinions. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments by suspected single-purpose accounts can be tagged using {{subst:spa|username}}

[edit] Discussions Started Before Article Rewrite

Whip Jones (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

:also consider Robert P. McCulloch (Withdrawn by nominator)--Isotope23 20:45, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
A lot of detail, but I don't see anything notable. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 03:54, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Personal opinion and the article has been drastically changed since you wrote that. -BMcCJ
  • Delete as NN - and reads close to a G11. - crz crztalk 03:59, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
question: what's a G11? - BMcCJ 01:07, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
Code for spam. Sorry. See WP:CSD under general, item 11. - crz crztalk 19:05, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
Thanks. Nope, not SPAM and not a FAKE biography as indicated by User_talk:Arthur_Rubin, just trying to move the biography from Aspen Highlands where it was clouding that entry see changes there. For open discussion, Whip is, in fact, a notable relative of mine, and I am not associated with either company mentioned Aspen Highlands or Aspen Skiing Company. This is not advertising or self promotion... just trying to make Wikipedia more encyclopedic, by moving the Jones biography information out of from where it was in the Highlands entry and expanding it with the US SUPREME COURT CASE that doesn't belong in either companies article. Guys, this is an easy KEEP. (bold removed) - BMcCJ 20:55, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
To just address one small point - to the extent that the concern is that information about the Supreme Court case needs to be "housed" somewhere other than in the companies' articles, might I suggest that the case have its own article? That's pretty standard practice - see, e.g., List of United States Supreme Court cases from the Hughes Court through the Burger Court. If it also turns out that Whip Jones is only notable as part of that case, he should just be mentioned in that article. --TheOtherBob 04:20, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
Bob, addressing your comment here and the one below. Whip Jones, the individual, is the one who started the legal action against ASC in 1979. There would be no case without him. He is the one who had the gumption to accuse the ASC of violating the Sherman act. In the Supreme court, it is an appeal, and the ASC is listed first. Whip was still running the company during the action and the appeal. Even without the supreme court case, I do not think it makes sense to delete this bio, and I do not think it makes sense to cram it back into the AH article, as Whip stopped any involvement in the AH in 1993. He founded, ran it, and fought off his rivals for 35 years. I only wish the bio wasn't so impersonal now that we've pruned it and pruned it.-BMcCJ
  • Comment; contested speedy, and part of a family of relatives, probably of the article creator. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 04:11, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Arthur, yep, you caught me, I'm related. But, I really didn't create this, it started inside a different article Aspen Highlands and I knew it didn't belong in there. Whip Jones is the first article I've tried to create in wikipedia, and this is my first 'article for deletion discussion.' Good thing I have a thick skin and a sense of humor... ;) I've learned at least four things: a)complete your pages before you post them. b)sign your work even when you are unable to log on because of firewalls. c)be upfront about being related. and d) things I know are important may be meaningless to others.  :) Perhap the author of the bio page:Arthur Rubin can help me get this page to be passable. ;) BMcCJ
Delete per above. MER-C 04:56, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - verging on speedy, really nn. SkierRMH,07:36, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

::I'd like to join Robert P. McCulloch to this, as another bio by the same author, but can't figure out how to do it- directions or help would be appreciated!SkierRMH 07:54, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

:::I've bundled this. You can see how I did it if you look at Robert P. McCulloch.--Isotope23 15:03, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete Whip Jones as subject doesn't meet WP:BIO and move back Whip Jones III (Bold and the Beautiful) to this namespace. Consider getting rid of Whip Jones (disambiguation) at the same time because it isn't necessary if this article gets deleted.
Do you really still think this? - BMcCJ

Redirect Robert P. McCulloch to London Bridge. McCulloch did purchase the original London Bridge and move it to Lake Havasu, AZ... but to me that isn't enough to meet WP:BIO and that fact is mentioned at London Bridge. Everything else in the article on McCulloch is inconsequential and it would be redundant to just grab the paragraph from London Bridge and post it at the Robert P. McCulloch namespace.--Isotope23 15:03, 13 December 2006 (UTC) *(Second vote on added person). Keep Robert P. McCulloch, but move back to Robert McCulloch. I think a "city founder" (if that's correct) is adequately notable. Much of the article still needs to be trimmed, but I think there's enough there for retention. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 15:54, 13 December 2006 (UTC) :*How did I miss that he founded the city? stuck opinion above. I've cleaned the article up a bit, though it could use more cleanup...--Isotope23 18:21, 13 December 2006 (UTC) *Keep Robert P. McCulloch, highly notable as an entrepreur, businessman and developer. Founded namesake company famous for power tools such as chainsaws. Founded Lake Havasu City, Arizona and upscale Phoenix suburb of Fountain Hills. Non-trivial references mainly in the Arizona Republic and possibly other written materials that can help Robert P. McCulloch satisfy WP:BIO can be found with further research.--Msr69er 20:29, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete Whip Jones per nom, Keep McCulloch per Rubin and Msr69er. Xtifr tälk 22:10, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
    • Change to neutral on Jones. Still pretty marginal, and I think an article on the lawsuit would be more appropriate than an article on the person, but it's closer than I want to call at this point. Xtifr tälk 20:00, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete I would have voted speedy! FirefoxMan 01:14, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
Was this for Jones or McCulloch or both of them? -BMcCJ
  • STRONG KEEP Whip Jones Notable per WP:BIO criteria! Legend and Hall of Famer in the Entertainment Industry: Skiing. Founder, Developer and Record Holder (Longest Family Run Ski Business - Aspen Highlands). Largest Contributor (second only to Bill Gates) to Harvard. Test of Time: His contribution the Aspen Highlands ski resort will last longer than 100 years. MUCH more important than a fictional soap opera character Whip Jones III (B&B) that only lasted seven months on the Bold and the Beautiful. His name was in the news recently when the Economic Chair at Harvard (with his name) lost the position in a well publicized controversy. I agree it needs to be cleaned up, but it is certainly notable.-BMcCJ
  • Comment I don't see how any of that meets the WP:BIO criteria. I think it is a stretch to consider skiing part of the entertainment industry. Being the builder/owner of Aspen Highlands isn't enough in my opinion, likewise with being a contributor to Harvard. The "test of time" is an alternate test and to me isn't very valid because it is crystalballism; nobody can say with any certainty if he or his contributions will be notable in 100 years. I just don't see a case per WP:BIO.--Isotope23 17:57, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
Unless it stops snowing in North America, the Ski Resort Town of Aspen and Aspen Highlands will still have skiiers on the many many slopes Whip cleared, named and operated. -BMcCJ

* STRONG KEEP Robert P. McCulloch or Robert Paxton McCulloch Notable per WP:BIO criteria! City Founder and Founder of the Paxton Supercharger, McCulloch Chainsaws, McCulloch Oil. Two Time Guiness Book - Record Holder (Largest Antique - London Bridge, and Tallest Fountain). His industry contributions and the city he designed and built will also stand the Wikipedia Test of Time - 100 years. Because there are other notable Robert McCulloch's -- my newbie opinion is that his entry should be Robert P. McCulloch or Robert Paxton McCulloch. BMcCJ :*Comment Agreed, this article should stay. Needs furter editing though.--Isotope23 17:57, 14 December 2006 (UTC) * STRONG KEEP Edison Pioneers and John I. Beggs - both notable per WP:BIO criteria. I hope all of these entries grow to meet the Wikipedia standards... all four of them are notable. And yes they are related. John I. Beggs was a peer to Thomas Edison and the grandfather of Robert P. McCulloch. Whip Jones was McCulloch's brother-in-law. Its an incredible family and notable American History that needs to be properly presented. BMcCJ :*Comment Neither of these are part of this deletion discussion (Beggs AfD was retracted by nominator and EP was a speedy candidate but this was rescinded) so there is really nothing to discuss here though to note that Whip Jones relation to McCulloch and Beggs isn't relevent because he is either notable for his own actions or not notable. Family relations don't establish notability unless you are royalty.--Isotope23 17:57, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

  • QUESTION I'm a newbie, Why is it we immortalize short term fictional soap opera characters and then debate whether or not to keep entries for real people that made lasting contributions??? I realize that Wikipedia isn't a geneology site, but clearly the contributions are huge!, lasting and notable ~ whether or not you've ever heard of these people, or whether or not the original author is related. Isn't that the hope with Wikipedia that we work together to create the timely encyclopedia with balanced, verifiable - neutral viewpoints? Let's not be so hasty to delete. BMcCJ
    • (edit conflict, not replying to Isotope23
      Comment (explaining to the article creator):

**: Robert McCulloch (not his ancestor) should be kept; I think it might be a speedy keep, as the person who added it to this nomination then attempted to withdraw it.**

Whip Jones appears not to be notable. Nothing you've said in the article or above justifies his notability.
Arthur, do you have a reason you want this deleted. I just don't get it. I'm baffled. BMcCJ

**: and, although not relevant to this nomination. **: Edison Pioneers probably should be kept, but there really isn't enough there at the moment to be worthy of being kept. If it's not expanded within a few days, I'll propose deletion again. **: John I. Beggs should be kept only as an Edison Pioneers member or associate. Nothing else you've said about him is notable. **: and the half-dozen or so others were speedily deleted as no evidence of notability being presented.

Arthur Rubin | (talk) 18:01, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
Arthur, you keep bringing up notability, I'm using your autobiography as an example, because you wrote it and you put it there for us to read:Arthur Rubin or Whip Jones, whose slopes will kids be learning on in 50 or 100 years? Perhaps BOTH your math curves and the trails that Whip cleared. I don't understand why a seven month soap opera character stays Whip Jones III (B&B) and a man with who helped build one of the most recognizable resort names in skiing in the last 50 years is less notable. We are deciding what (if anything) belongs at the wiki entry for "Whip Jones" is it the founder of AH or short term soap opera character?
  • Whip Jones seems to be the only entry we are discussing now. Perhaps the bio needs to be shortened and less colorful. But there are two important reasons to keep it, and I'm not sure what deleting it accomplishes. Maybe its less notability (although I think if you checked with anyone in the ski industry Jones would be considered notable) and more for referential value that I strongly feel its important to keep. -BMcCJ.
    • First, Aspen Highlands the Ski Mountain will not be going anywhere in the next 100 years, creating this is a lasting contribution for which Jones was inducted into the Colorado Ski Hall of Fame. Wikipedia will have an entry for Aspen Highlands (one of only four ski areas in the famous Aspen resort for longer than the next 100 years. The first sentence of the Highlands entry references founder Whip Jones so I would aggue that the Whip Jones entry completes and gives detail and background to the Aspen Highlands one. Originally the Jones BIO was stuck into the Highlands entry and I thought I was helping by moving it out and making it separate as it makes the Highlands entry cleaner.
    • Second, there is a competing entry for a Whip Jones III (B&B) - a seven month soap opera character. By deleting this Whip Jones then it looks like the ski resort was founded by a Soap Opera character. FYI: The Ski industry is clearly an entertainment (as well as recreation) industy.
    • This Whip Jones article is important to other articles: Aspen Highlands, Andrei Shleifer, Aspen Skiing Company
    • As a newbie, I'm not sure of the technical reason to keep this page, but IMHO it is equally relevant and important to other Wikipedia pages.
    • Art, some of the other ones you speedily deleted were fair deletions for now. But, this one should stay.BMcCJ

***Please only say "keep" or "delete" once per discussion.--Isotope23 20:48, 14 December 2006 (UTC) fixed BMcCJ

  • Delete Neutral Who are we discussing in this AfD? If it's Whip Jones, I say delete - I found the story interesting, but can't identify a reason for notability. Interestingly, the company he founded was part of the Aspen Skiing case, which established some pretty interesting (i.e. wrong) antitrust law in the Supreme Court. But that's too attenuated a connection with notability for me. If someone can point out why he's notable, I might reconsider, but I'm not seeing it. --TheOtherBob 19:14, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Changed my vote to neutral - although he's an impressive guy, and although the article is looking much better, I'm not sure that anything he's done is notable enough to say keep. Still, I'm on the fence, so I'm just going to be neutral.--TheOtherBob 00:05, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Discussions Started After Major Editing, Revamping and Concise Article

  • PLEASE RE-READ ACTUAL WIKIPEDIA ARTICLE BMcCJ
  • Comment: Based on feedback, I have revamped this article to bring the significant and relevant information to the top. This AfD is confusing as it is based on the original article and tried to address AfDing two people at once. As the Whip Jones article under debate has been 'revamped' with significant information about the groundbreaking antitrust law and the US Supreme Court Case added. Also the personal, family background color information has been moved to the bottom (and could be deleted, if necessary, to keep the article).-BMcCJ
  • Questions: How many people have founded and run an independent Ski Resort in Aspen for 35 years? Created a world famous resort that has lasted 50 years (so far)?, Fought the competition in the US Supreme Court and won? Set long standing antitrust law? Been inducted to the Colorado Skiing Hall of Fame? Made the second largest donation (handing over a a Ski Resort) ever to Harvard??? How many people in the world have done all those things? Seriously? -BMcCJ
  • Revote? Because the article has been totally revamped, sourced and revised for relevance and NPOV, I'd like to propose cancelling the AfD or start a revote. I'd love help making the article better. I think the Whip Jones article is a great addition to Wikipedia and adds to other entries: Aspen, Aspen Skiing Company, Aspen Highlands, US Supreme Court, Harvard, Colorado Skiing, Pitkin County, Economist Andrei Shleifer-BMcCJ 06:21, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
  • RE-EXAMINE I have now further edited and cut down to an appropriate size, with only appropriate links, even though this removed a good deal of what had just been added-- perhaps because I am not associated with the family :). I urge the original editor to examine and learn from other similar articles when working on future articles.
    • WJ is clearly a prominent businessperson and sports executive, having been a pioneering founder of major ski areas in Aspen. There is adequate documentation, including a US Supreme Court case. I urge those previously voting to re-examine the article and perhaps change their vote.DGG 07:08, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Changed to neutral. Notability concerns have been fixed, but WP:COI creeps into the picture. MER-C 07:23, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: Please see the discussion page Talk:Whip Jones I've cut/pasted three articles there (with source links) for easy access and readability. Perhaps there is some information there that the fine Wikipedians could use to improve the Article in question.
Also updated the Discussion Page with Google search links and ghit counts.
- BMcCJ 17:17, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete fails WP:BIO. Eusebeus 11:42, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
 ??? Quoting the WP:BIO Criteria: The person made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in their specific field Jones's two widely recognized contributions in Colorado Skiing: Aspen Highlands and the US Supreme Court Case - BMcCJ 01:17, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
Yes, but...the WP:Bio excerpt you cite has its limitations. There are three moving parts here: A widely recognized contribution, that is part of the enduring historical record, in a specific field. Here the concern is that the field may be too specific; the contribution not widely enough recognized. Is this person notable outside of the local Colorado skiing industry?
Yes and the achievement is as well. The Colorado Ski Industry is huge (in customers, narrow in terms of owner/operators) and internationally recognized. I suspect that none of the people favoring a delete are members of the ski industry. But, we have evidence that in his field he was recognized twice and inducted into two industry halls of fame. His industry recognized his lifetime achievments and lasting contributions ~ TWICE. And I don't know of anything more enduring than a mountain. -BMcCJ
I agree that a mountain is enduring - and please don't take this the wrong way, but, come on - he didn't build the mountain. "God" did. Forget to oil the gears on the chair lift for a few years, and it would be back to God's Mountain rather than Whip Jones's. (Sorry - I know that's rhetorical.) So you're right that the industry considers him a hall of famer. The problem comes if the industry is too narrowly defined to have "wide recognition." An inductee into the Kansas Electricians Hall of Fame would probably not be notable, for example, if no one in Missouri had heard of him. So although I hear your point about the Colorado ski industry, it's not open and shut. --TheOtherBob 17:16, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
I'm not sure, so I definitely see the argument that this fails WP:Bio. I think the Supreme Court case is a red-herring because the importance of that case has nothing to do with the personalities underlying it - it was something the Court did, not something notable that Jones did. I don't see any reason to think that a person, who founds a company, that becomes a party to a case, that makes it to the Supreme Court, which then creates interesting law, is therefore notable (sorry - that was a lot of extraneous commas).
ok, I get your point. It isn't that he founded a company that later went on and became party to a case. He was the party that initiated the case, through his company. big difference.-BMcCJ
Not really. First off, he didn't change the law - the Court did. Still, if he had been the named party, there might be some minimal value to having an article so that someone could look him up for more information. (Just as someone might, for example, look up who that "Brown" or "Roe" or "Lochner" person was.) But he wasn't - and involvement in a case that goes to the Court does not seem to me to create notability in itself. --TheOtherBob 17:16, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
Or, to put it another way, thousands of pages of legal commentary have been written about the Aspen Skiing case - but I've never seen one that discussed Whip Jones.
When a case is presented from one company sueing another AH vs ASC and then again an appeal ASC vs. AH. The AH is Whip Jones. It was a small front office, with only one owner. From 1956 through to 1993 Whip personally signed every paycheck, and ran the place, skiing nearly every day, meeting for photos with nearly every celeb from 1956 through to 1993. They wanted their picture with him hanging on the wall in the Merry-go-round lounge midmountain. He was the man, in separable from the company and the mountain. Again, 'he was the man with the gumption to start the action. I can tell you from spending time with him, that he really didn't publicize himself very much. It was all about the mountain.-BMcCJ
The AH wasn't Whip Jones for the purposes of the case, as above. As a result it is the case, and sometimes the company, rather than the man that has been discussed in outside sources. If we were weighing his value as a person, it wouldn't matter whether it was the mountain or the man that got the press. He is most definitely impressive. But we're discussing notability - and notability requires outside sources. And while having gumption is impressive, that's not the same as notable. If he sat quietly back in the shadows, always making it about the mountain rather than him...then he probably let the mountain become notable without becoming notable himself. (Though, just to reiterate, I'm not sure that this is the case - he may have become independently notable. I'm neutral on how all this weighs out.) --TheOtherBob 17:16, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
So while I'm neutral, I can see the WP:Bio concern. --TheOtherBob 04:20, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Jones per DGG and MER-C: notability, WP:COI, sourcing and WP:BIO concerns have all been addressed in DGG edits. Alternatively, the Jones biography might be better merged back into the one for Aspen Highlands - where it came from, but it may not make NPOV sense to put the US Supreme Court case on the Ski Resort's page because it seems more relevant here separately with Jones. SweetGodiva 18:39, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
  • FYI: The result of the AfD for seven month the soap opera character Whip Jones III (B&B) was a KEEP. (bold removed) I think this biography and the long lasting contributions made by the subject, stand on their own merit as compared to other less notable biographies and autobiographies currently online. I encourage those reading and deciding to actually read the revised article and comment and discuss and vote based on the current article -- as opposed to what was voted above about the original article. What do you think about the current article??? Also, your feedback, input and help with the articles: Edison Pioneers, John I. Beggs photo added, and Robert P. McCulloch would be greatly appreciated. - BMcCJ 01:07, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Ask Yourself: In the fifty years, between now and when Aspen Highlands has its centennial celebration, will this article be useful to persons in school doing research. I think the answer is YES, for reports like "The History of Skiing in America", "Places I'd like to visit: Aspen", "The history of Aspen and its Ski resorts". This is a useful article for those reports. Thank you for your patient consideration! User:BMcCJ
  • Comment I haven't seen more socks since I did my laundry last week. Note that User:SavageGecko, User:BMcCJ, and many of the IP's (who have edited the user pages of those individuals), are undoubtable the same user. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 01:55, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
Arthur, I've only voted once, and yes have moved from my original user ID: SavageGecko to one I prefer to develop in the future: BMcCJ. I am open about it on my User page and have the old one redirecting there. And I've taken my "Soapbox" thoughts and my personal opinions about you and your own supposed "notability" there as well. Feel free to take the personal discussion to my page, where I'll be glad to talk to you there. Let's stick to the merits of this biographical entry and whether or not it stands on its own or should go back into the Aspen Highlands entry where it came from. I didn't create this content, I moved it from an existing Wikipedia page. You know this is a legit article, stop roasting the newbie. I get the feeling you would rather win the debate than do what is right. This should be a KEEP (bold removed), period. Look at the article, is it ok or not. This whole discussion and the vote got messed up when you wiki professionals started trying to bundle the articles. - BMcCJ 02:37, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment - You did vote more than once, though all in the same two additions. I know you're a newbie, but it is really really bad form to cast more than one "vote". While afd is a discussion, not a vote, is has vote-like properties, only in that you may not "vote" more than once. A vote is placing anything in bold and then commenting after it. -Patstuarttalk|edits 02:44, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
Ok, thanks. a) I'm sorry, how would I have known? b) should I undo it? c) do you have any thoughts on the actual subject article? d) is there a way to take out all the discussion that is not related to the Whip Jones article- BMcCJ 02:52, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
Well, it would help if you could be much more precise. As it is, anybody that wants to know anything about the man will have to comb through 4 pages of discussion. Conciseness helps a lot. :) -Patstuarttalk|edits 03:08, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
The article in question Whip Jones is concise. - BMcCJ 03:16, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
No, I mean your reasoning on this page. -Patstuarttalk|edits 03:40, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
What do you think about the merits of the article, is it a delete or a keep. - BMcCJ
  • Removed my errant use of BOLD, fixed my user ID/IP address problem, striking all comments regarding other BIOs for McCulloch, Beggs or Edison Pioneeers. I believe my changes are fair to the spirit and accuracy of the discussion. Just wanted to make it easier to read. With a smile and newbie appologies to all. Fingers crossed that I don't do this the wrong way (again!).-BMcCJ
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.