Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alexander Hamilton (reverend) (2nd nomination)

Add links
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 no consensus. Keep votes are particularly weak (some are frankly spurious), but even taking that into account there appears to be enough reasonable rationales not to close this as Delete. This closure does of course not preclude a re-nomination at any point. Black Kite (t) (c) 00:44, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alexander Hamilton (reverend)

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
Alexander Hamilton (reverend) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:BIO, with only directory listings and passing references at Google Book Search, and some hits about different persons with a similar name. Being related to a notable person does not make him notable. Edison (talk) 21:07, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

in context, that's a clear misprint for 1787; the book is a RS, publ. by University of Virginia Press, & the author & perhaps even the book itself are probably notable [1]. Not saying this proves the notability oft he subject of this article, though. DGG ( talk ) 00:30, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If one clicks here the seventh book from the top has the following description: "Liberty without anarchy: a history of the Society of the Cincinnati‎ - Page 230 Minor Myers - History - 2004 - 280 pages John Schuyler, treasurer general of the Cincinnati, offered advice, the Reverend Alexander Hamilton agreed to be chaplain, and by 1897 there were ... Snippet view - About this book - Add to My Library ▼ - More editions". If someone buys this book and reports back to us we can tell for sure how notable the reverend may have been. But from the description it is clear that he was notable enough to be mentioned by an RS and he also played a notable role in a notable organisation. Dr.K. λogosπraxis
Apart from the fact that the number of times someone is mentioned is irrelevant, it is also plainly wrong. "To covet honor: a biography of Alexander Hamilton" mentions a 1970s person of the same name" All mentions of before 1870 or so are not about this one (born in 1847), but yet another one. That's at least four more that don't apply. When you go to the end of the search, you only get 29 hits, not 40 or 38. Furthermore, all the onse taling about the National Railway Historical Society are also another one (perhaps the 1970s one, perhaps not). Something like "Modernism and the Celtic revival‎" also discusses another one, active in the 1850s. So your Google search count, while fundamentally irrelevant anyway, is very deeply flawed,with only a few of these results probably about the reverend (albeit in passing), and the majority about different people with the same name. Fram (talk) 13:36, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
OK, since my !vote a NYT obit has been added. While that's a step in the right direction, I still don't think this adds up to standard of coverage required by ANYBIO or even WP:GNG. Yilloslime TC 22:18, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Call me neutral. Several new sources have appeared in the article, and I haven't had a chance to see whether they actually discuss Hamilton directly or in detail, so I really can't say keep or delete. But given the main author's penchant for puffing up articles with superfluous references, I'd encourage all editors, but especially those voting !keep, to examine the sources carefully. The article definitely needs be cleaned up, though: It reads like a nice genealogical entry rather than an encyclopedia-style biography. For example, I can't for the life of me figure out what makes this guy special, other than being related to Alexander Hamilton. Yilloslime TC 15:13, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No assertion of notability. Appears to be a run of the mill chaplain who happened to have a famous relative. AniMate 19:53, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Historical nobility notability is notability enough for en.Wikipedia. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 20:15, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:ITSNOTABLE. ╟─TreasuryTag►You may go away now.─╢ 21:14, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Nobility? Earl, baron, viscount, duke? What kind of nobility was he, actually? Fram (talk) 06:55, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Oops. Please excuse my typo (now corrected). I did not intend "nobility", I intended notability in that a historical notability, as seen through the numerous proffered sources (please review WP:GNG and WP:BIO}, is notable enough for Wikipedia. Coverage in The New York Times with a lengthy obituary meets all applicable standards of notability. Also, please review WP:POINT. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 19:12, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This gentleman, while well respected during his life by his family and congregation, is not notable. So that I don't just say "he's not notable", I see no evidence in this biography that makes him distinctive. He was born, he went to seminary, he served his congregation, he was a Freemason. I don't think I've missed anything. There's nothing there that separates him from millions of other members of the clergy in this country's history. He wrote no books, he was elected to no office, he founded no companies, he made no important speeches. The only reference to him in print is in a volume of the New York genealogical society. I'm listed in several genealogical volumes from Hopkins County, Texas, but at least I've authored a book. Should I have an article in Wikipedia--no. --Taivo (talk) 01:04, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete. Unfortunately, no assertion of notability. Just a mere pastor from a very famous family. Gattosby (talk) 02:48, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. I have been pursuaded to vote keep by the very valid arguements and reasoning of User:Dr.K above. It seems this man is notable and it's likely this article will be of use to any student researching the subject. So yep, keep. It's of use.  Giacomo  13:22, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"It is useful" is a classic nonjustification for keeping an article of only genealogical interest. Edison (talk) 03:28, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, but you've got to be kidding. "May have been notable" isn't notable. No one has demonstrated at any level whatsoever that this guy was different from any of a million chaplains/clergy over the past two centuries of American history. Notability doesn't just mean "A great guy, a guy whose name occurs once in the history of a minor organization, a guy above average". It means someone who did something notable, something somewhat historic. There's nothing in this gentleman's record that says that. "Above average" doesn't make one notable. "May have been notable" means that anyone who is ever mentioned by name in any reliable source whatsoever should have a Wikipedia article just in case they have done something noteworthy. NO. Wikipedia requires documentation, not speculation. Right now, all that exists here is speculation that he might have done something. That's not good enough for Wikipedia. Otherwise we should list every baby born because their names are listed in the newspaper under "Births" just in case they do something notable later that can be documented. --Taivo (talk) 13:44, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please, this discussion is not about other unwritten articles... its about one... an individual who meets WP:GNG. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 19:12, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps today, but not 100 years ago. There has still been absolutely NO evidence presented whatsoever that this gentleman, as good a pastor as he might have been, fits within Wikipedia's standards for notability. The question which no one has addressed is, "What did this man do that warrants special treatment?" What made him special to justify a Wikipedia entry? No one has given a single valid piece of information. The closest anyone has come is, "He might have been notable". My grandfather might have been notable under that specious justification. You created this article. You should be able to answer that question right away. But if the only "notability" that you based this article on was an obit in the NY Times, then you have no justification whatsoever. --Taivo (talk) 17:40, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Once notable always notable. Why deconstruct what notability means, either the media took notice of you or they didn't. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 21:45, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Notability is not temporary. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 19:12, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Notability is not temporary, but my comment was about the New York Times obituary being the sole measure of notability. An obit in today's New York Times might be a measure of notability, but not necessarily an obit in the New York Times of 100 years ago. --Taivo (talk) 21:16, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep A fascinating individual, whose article is backed by reliable and verifiable sources, most notably a substantial obituary in The New York Times. We can deal with what are deemed to be borderline articles by improving them or tossing them into the garbage can. Sadly, there are far too many individuals who will disruptively pursue deletion, when improving the article is the far more productive option. Alansohn (talk) 17:48, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Once again, what did he do? Have you read the NY Times obit? It's only available to subscribers online. If he did something, then add it to the article as you suggest, but so far no one has said a single notable thing that he did. --Taivo (talk) 18:06, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have read it, Alansohn has a subscription, mine expired. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 06:50, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Notability has nothing do with having done "a single notable thing", and everything to do with coverage in reliable and verifiable sources. He meets the WP:GNG as having "received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject", which makes him notable; The artificial "but what specific thing did he do" standard you have invented does not exist. Alansohn (talk) 18:18, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"Significant coverage" is more than just an obit (which is unavailable for examination except by subscribers). No one has claimed to have actually read this obituary. If so, then they should be able to list more than just a competent clergyman as his claim to notability. --Taivo (talk) 21:16, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia says that " 'Significant coverage' means that sources address the subject directly in detail, so no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material." Every fact is tied to a reference, so the coverage as defined by Wikipedia is significant. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 02:32, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And "fascinating"? Based solely on this Wikipedia article? Your standards are rather low if that's the case. If you know more, then please share it. This gentleman may be notable, but there's absolutely no evidence of it at this point. --Taivo (talk) 21:47, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Coverage in The New York Times with a lengthy obituary seems to "mee" all applicable standards of notability. Alansohn (talk) 18:18, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. User:DGG also noted this about the NYT obituary in a separate but related Afd. Dr.K. λogosπraxis 19:26, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. And my disagreement aside, I doubt you'll find consensus for this view. As noted above, a NYT obit from 80 years ago isn't the same one from today. And if it's only the instance of significant coverage of this person, then WP:BIO isn't met, as this guideline requires multiple sources. Yilloslime TC 19:31, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
@Yilloslime: Please review WP:NTEMP and since the obit is not the only available source for this individual, you might wish to review WP:GNG as well. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 19:50, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe you should review WP:GNG--it requires significant (i.e. non-trivial, "direct detailed") coverage in sources. Plural. Certainly the obit is one such source, but we need more than just one, and the genealogical sources don't cut it my book. Yilloslime TC 22:22, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There are more. There is a book mentioning him and some NYT articles. Dr.K. λogosπraxis 19:44, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
But since no one is coming forward who has actually examined or actually read any of the NT Times articles or the book, then all we are basing this bio on are Google quotes or the existence of a NY Times obit title. Just the existence of an 80-year-old NY Times obit and a quote that no one seems to have placed in context really isn't enough to call this a notable person. I ask again, What did he do that was notable? He served in the Army, he became a clergyman, he joined a political club, he was a Freemason. So? --Taivo (talk) 21:16, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
He was "asked" to join the organisation and this was later reported in a notable book more than a century later. He has some historical standing obviously. Dr.K. λogosπraxis 21:27, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Do we have an article on everyone who was asked to join that organization? And the nature of that "notable book" isn't exactly clear. If the book is so notable, why wasn't it used to write this article? Doesn't anyone actually have a copy of that book so that they can defend his status? The only quote that has been produced is from Google Books and isn't much of a note. Correct me if I'm wrong, but the book was a history of that particular organization, and a listing of principal officers in that organization over time would be a natural part of the writing. That doesn't make each of the listed officers worthy of note just because they are in a written history of that particular organization. I still ask the question, "What did he do that was notable?" No one has produced a single piece of evidence, only hearsay. --Taivo (talk) 21:37, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Quote from the article: The Society of the Cincinnati is a historic organization with branches in the United States and France founded in 1783 to preserve the ideals and fellowship of the Revolutionary War officers and to pressure the government to honor pledges it had made to officers who fought for American independence. I don't know about you, Taivo, but this does not sound like a club to me. It sounds like an important American historical organisation. And I for one, would love to know more about their historical chaplain. But maybe you don't care so much. I don't know why. And I am not even an American :) Dr.K. λogosπraxis 21:48, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's a political advocacy group, Dr. K, not "an important American historical organization". It ranks with other political advocacy groups. But even if it were important in 1783 when it was founded, the soldiers of the American Revolution were long dead by the late 1800s and Alexander Hamilton was not their only chaplain in the 100 years from 1783 until he joined. No one has yet pointed to one solitary thing that he should be noted for. People claim there is a long obit in the NY Times, but no one seems to have actually read it and no one has cited a single thing out of it pointing to notability. The obit's existence is not a measure of notability. --Taivo (talk) 03:29, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The National Cyclopaedia of American Biography

[edit]

Just added to the article by RAN. Dr.K. λogosπraxis 22:02, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reading our entry on the National Cyclopaedia of American Biography, that doesn't exactly sound like a ringing endorsement in regards to notability. Apparently, this work: lacks the scholarly approach and the bibliographies characteristic of the latter work. The entries in the National Cyclopaedia are unsigned and are largely based upon questionnaires and other information supplied by families of the biographees. A source that relies on family letters and isn't peer reviewed. Wow. AniMate 22:09, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think you are confusing notability and verifiability. Who they chose to include determines notability. Whether the person in the biography actually graduated from Harvard or failed out of Harvard and reported that they graduated is a matter of verifiability. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 22:22, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)::Maybe not as rigorous as the British equivalent (DNB) but like I said before the preponderance of the evidence points toward plausible notability. Dr.K. λogosπraxis 22:25, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict):: @RAN: Exactly. It doesn't sound like the Cyclopaedia is a reliable source, and WP:GNG and WP:BIO require coverage in reliable sources to demonstrate notability. Reams of coverage in non-reliable sources, or non-independent sources doesn't add up to notability. Yilloslime TC 22:26, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think you are confusing notability and verifiability. Who they chose to include determines notability. Whether the person in the biography actually graduated from Harvard or failed out of Harvard and reported that they graduated is a matter of verifiability. The same may be said for the Time 100 each year, Michael Moore may not be the best choice to write a short biography of Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva for verifiability, but the choices denote notability. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 22:22, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I know of no blacklisting of the source by Wikipedia. Several other sources were blacklisted as unreliable including an encyclopedia of criminals where the author claimed he inserted false biographies as copyright traps. If you think the source should be blacklisted, start a thread. Appletons Cyclopedia has problems too, but still is used as a source and has its own source tag. The Twelve Caesars is a mix of gossip and history, but it is used as a source for the biographies of those 12 people. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 22:28, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Oe of the bases of work here has always been that a full obit in the NYT or the London Times proves notability,and I would no sooner go behind it that doubt whether an Olympic athlete were really worthy of a spot on the national team. These rules of thumb aren't perfect, but they eliminates discussions like this, where we try to use our own unaided judgement. The fact that we cannot reliable do so is why we rely on sources. On balance, they're the surest available criterion for general notability in the US and the UK in recent times.We have to rely on something, and an obit in either of them is worth any number of obits in local papers of any sort. Sources are not actually divided into R/~R,but rather thereis a spectrum of reliability. I think some of the standards we are sometimes using are hyper-critical--there is no academic bio source that is free from errors as far as WP:V is concerned, or that is totally free of what would seem hard-to-explain inclusions or exclusions as far as WP:N is concerned. (This specifically includes the new and old DNBs.). It's just an illusion that the academic world is perfect, and that everything published by a good publisher is true. But we have to deal with the sources that exist, and the attempt to go behind them is exactly what constitutes OR, in which we are generally not qualified to engage. I would accept an entry in the NCAB as being at least an indication of reliability. DGG ( talk ) 02:28, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment DGG's view does not appear in WP:BIO and clearly is the view of some editors, but not a consensus view. The NY Times is an internationally known paper, but it is also a local newspaper, and sometimes publishes long obits of persons of only local importance, whose obituary would not be carried by papers in other regions,. This appears to be one such case. If a wire service carried the obit, and if papers in other regions carried an obit of the individual, it would be more convincing. Wikipedia is not a mindless and uncritical mirror of the obit section of any newspaper. Edison (talk) 14:05, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    An obit was provided by AP, and had a full sentence about this Alexander Hamilton, and one about his ancestor.[3] It also appeared (as far as I can tell identical) in the Chicago Tribune. The only slightly more indepth one seems to be the NYTimes obit. Fram (talk) 14:20, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
According to this wire service obit, the only notable thing about our gentleman was his ancestry and his membership in the clergy. In other words, there was nothing notable about him written here. --Taivo (talk) 14:49, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia doesn't require notable deeds just "significant coverage". --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 02:34, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Being a distant relative of Alexander Hamilton is not a basis for notability in Wikipedia. Edison (talk) 03:30, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia only requires that "if a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article." It doesn't matter why the New York Times and the National Biography chose to write about him. I don't know why reality stars or sports figures are written about, but they are, and they are notable by Wikipedia standards. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 06:54, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
But this gentlemen has not received "significant coverage". He has an obit in the NY Times, that, as far as anyone has said, says nothing but that he was a local clergyman. You've read the obit, so what has he done other than being born of a famous ancestor? I ask again, "What did he do that is notable?" Not one single, solitary person here has said a single notable thing that he has done to warrant Wikipedia coverage. The only sources that have been discussed here are:
  • 1) The NY Times obit which we can only read the first paragraph of and only says that he was a local clergyman. If there's more, then no one is saying that any notable information is written.
  • 2) A wire service obit that was printed that only says he was a local clergyman and was the scion of a famous ancestor.
  • 3) A "National Dictionary of Biography" entry that no one has provided any notable information from. The entry may just say "He was a local clergyman who was descended from Alexander Hamilton" for all anyone has quoted from it. I don't know how much weight to put on such "society volumes". I'm listed in the "Who's Who among American High School Students" for 1973. That doesn't make me notable.
  • 4) A listing in a genealogical volume. Well, so are millions of other non-notable people.
  • 5) A quote from a book about one of the societies he belonged to that says nothing about why he's notable, only that he became chaplain in a certain year (as, I'm sure, it lists other men who served as chaplain over the years).
If this gentleman is actually notable, then it should be easy for one of you who are begging to keep this article to write something notable about him. So far, there has been not one single, solitary notable thing written about him. Notability requires more than just your name occurring in a book about a society you joined or in an obituary in the local paper. --Taivo (talk) 11:36, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think you are arguing that he has to have done something notable. Wikipedia only asks that he be notable as in the rule: "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article." As I said earlier I don't think sports people or reality stars or socialites are notable, but reliable media do. You being in "Who's Who among American High School Students" is just one entry and is a "pay to play" system. They were still calling me and now email me for $500 to be included if I buy the subscription. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 18:48, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete his ancestry is the only notable thing. GoodDay (talk) 14:40, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep While arguments have been made that a NYT obit from a century ago does not carry the same weight as one does now (which is likely true), I find no argument convincing that it does not still meet the standard of being significant coverage by an independent reliable source. This combined with the entry in Genealogical and family history of southern New York for me meets the requirements of WP:GNG, particularly with the other sources (even though the others may provide lesser and less reliable coverage). VernoWhitney (talk) 14:09, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Surely you didn't say that a genealogical reference is an adequate source to prove notability! Genealogical references are nothing more than extensive family histories that attempt to list nearly everyone of genealogical, not historical interest in an area. I'm listed in several genealogical references for east Texas. That doesn't make me Wiki-worthy. A genealogical reference does not meet the requirements of WP:GNG since notability is the least of the requirements for being entered into it. Evaluate your sources, people. Don't just blindly wander off and think that every book is equal in its relevance to Wikipedia. And the NY obit is not sufficient in and of itself. The Wikipedia standard is significant coverage in reliable sources (plural). --Taivo (talk) 14:22, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Could you please point me in the direction of the policy, guideline, or essay that states that in order to be a reliable source, the source must use notability as a requirement? Besides which, I imagine that not every single person who lived in southern New York is listed in the book, and so notability does enter into it at least a little. VernoWhitney (talk) 14:47, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"How reliable a source is, and the basis of its reliability, depends on the context" from WP:RS. It depends on the context. An obit in the New York Times of a local clergyman must be judged in context. Without corroborating evidence that Rev. Hamilton was notable in any other way, a NY Times obit simply isn't sufficient to prove notability. Mention in a genealogical source, well, isn't a measure of notability at all, but solely a measure of usefulness for genealogical research. Genealogical convenience is not one of the functions of Wikipedia. No one has answered a single, simple question that I have asked time and again: "What did Rev. Hamilton do that is worthy of note in Wikipedia?" So far not a single person has answered that question. The only answer that has been offered ad nauseum is "his name is in the NY Times". Well, that's not an answer sufficient to warrant his inclusion in Wikipedia. I've been mentioned in several local papers, I've been interviewed on public radio, I've written a book, I teach at a university, I'm mentioned in several genealogical books, I belong to civic organizations, I'm a Freemason, I went to a theological seminary, I was in the military during wartime. Does that make me notable, too? That's the level of reliable source that we're relying on for Rev. Hamilton, except he never published a book and was never on the radio. Get some perspective. I ask again, "What did Rev. Hamilton do that was notable?" Just getting your name in the paper is not notability. The NY Times of 80 years ago also published the police blotter, I imagine. --Taivo (talk) 15:37, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid we will have to agree to disagree about this one. I agree with your point that it appears he didn't do anything notable, but that isn't our criteria. If it were I'd ask "What did Paris Hilton do that was notable?" VernoWhitney (talk) 16:28, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
But if our criterion is simply "name must appear in a reliable source" then we've opened the floodgates to everyone whose name has ever appeared in the NY Times, a genealogical listing, or the unabridged history of some civic organization. Where does it end? Where's my article? My name has appeared in multiple reliable sources. --Taivo (talk) 17:30, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, but it's not a genealogical listing, it's a stub-length biography which is complete enough that I count it as significant coverage in a genealogical source. VernoWhitney (talk) 18:58, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The slippery slope is a logical fallacy. Wikipedia already excludes telephone book entries and listings because they are not "significant coverage". Who is who is not "independent of the subject", you pay $500 and submit your biography in a standard form. "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article." --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 18:52, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Don't focus on "Who's Who" (I didn't pay a dime to be listed 37 years ago). And notice that I did not include the phone book. Every written source that includes my name is a valid reliable source--newspapers, academic books, professional journals. You did not address the problem of including every name ever listed in the New York Times or every person ever given an obit in the New York Times 100 years ago. It's not a logical fallacy--it is a real issue. You are saying that any person who is listed in a reliable source should have an entry in Wikipedia, despite what they may or may not have done to deserve it. Rev. Hamilton did nothing remarkable here as far as any of you have found. He was a good clergyman who served in the military, graduated from seminary, and served his community. I applaud him. But that doesn't warrant an entry in Wikipedia just because he got his name in the paper. I've had my name in the paper, too and published a book and peer-reviewed research as well. Where's my article? No, the slippery slope is very real if you continue down this road of not demanding something out of the ordinary for entries in Wikipedia. If your criterion for inclusion is so weak as to be simply "publication in a reliable source", then you open the floodgates. --Taivo (talk) 20:43, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It was probably only $50 back then, and to get in you had to also buy a copy, which was the fee. Its a great business model. They also worked with the National Honor Society to enlist people. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 05:32, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This is also a famous debating trick--focus on some trivial detail to the exclusion of the big picture issue and your audience will forget the bigger issue. --Taivo (talk) 05:36, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, it is not what I am saying, it is what Wikipedia is saying: "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article." You are again confusing notability and verifiability. Your publications are verifiable, but since they just list your name and academic affiliation they are not "significant coverage". They have no biographical details that can be used to construct an article. They are the same as a phone book, useful to construct a CV, but have no "significant coverage" to write a biography. And yes, the slippery slope is a logical fallacy, it is the first lesson in any debating class, public speaking class, or junior high school class on logic. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 21:15, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Frankly, Taivo, if you've had your name in the paper, published a book and peer-reviewed research, an article about you would probably survive here. It would certainly get more than one Keep vote, esp. if a prominent person here wrote it. (You would lose keep votes for WP:COI if you wrote it yourself). Wknight94 talk 21:40, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Let's do it. Maybe then he can relax enough to let us have this one. Dr.K. λogosπraxis 22:01, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
LOL, Dr. K ;) My concern is that Wikipedia not become just a clearinghouse for an article on every single person who's had their name listed in a newspaper. If a NY Times obit is the criterion for inclusion without some indication of something notable that was done by that person, then the slippery slope is upon us. --Taivo (talk) 05:20, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well at least you have shifted from the slippery slope fallacy to the strawman fallacy. There are multiple references available in the article, I am not sure why you need to set up the NY Times as a strawman. In the strawman you pick the weakest argument and tear it down and then say the whole debate is negated. Again, it is a logical fallacy. Any other logical or rhetorical fallacies you are holding in reserve? --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 05:27, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
But none of these references really focus on anything that Rev. Hamilton actually did that would make him notable. He was a good clergyman. No one denies that. He did the things that good clergymen normally do. No one denies that. But does that make him notable? No. The only basis that you are using to call him notable is the fact that his local newspaper happened to be the New York Times and not the Slippery Rock Gazette. --Taivo (talk) 05:38, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree he has performed no notable deeds that I can discern from the multiple biographies of him. But Wikipedia is about notable people where "if a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article." I understand your argument for notable deeds as a requirement, and maybe you should lobby for that change in the notability guideline and we can delete actors, sports figures, socialites, internet memes, and reality TV people. After all, actors just appear in films and sports people just throw balls. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 05:45, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Uh, FeydHuxtable, he had no writings. That's part of the problem--his "notability" comes from his ancestry and his name. --Taivo (talk) 16:05, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Can you please stick to the Wikipedia definition of notability which says: "if a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article." Your personal definition is nice, but not useful in this debate. I see you are still sticking to the strawman fallacy and setting up his relations to his grandfather as the strawman. Aren't you a linguistics professor? We shouldn't be arguing over the clear Wikipedia wording if words are your area of expertise. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 01:31, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Is it your intention to turn this disagreement personal? --Taivo (talk) 01:52, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not at all, but as a linguist you should appreciate the clear wording of the Wikipedia rule that determines what gets an article. You sound more like a lawyer or a politician than someone devoted to the clarity of language. And why the link to "attack"? Reminding you that you devoted your life to clarity in language is personal, not a personal attack. Just as me being a scientist, you should have expectations of my ability on scientific topics in my area. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 03:19, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Making any argument that is directed personally is a personal attack. I have made no personal attacks directed at you, so I warn you to keep the arguments focused on the issue and not on me personally. You need to review WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL very carefully before you go down this path of discussion. --Taivo (talk) 04:24, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Dude, read what you link too. Making a personal statement, that you are a linguist is not a personal attack. Here we go again with me cutting and pasting an exact definition: "Racial, sexual, homophobic, ageist, religious, political, ethnic, or other epithets (such as against people with disabilities) directed against another contributor. Disagreement over what constitutes a religion, race, sexual preference, or ethnicity is not a legitimate excuse. Using someone's affiliations as an ad hominem means of dismissing or discrediting their views—regardless of whether said affiliations are mainstream. An example could be "you're a train spotter so what would you know about fashion?" Note that although pointing out an editor's relevant conflict of interest and its relevance to the discussion at hand is not considered a personal attack, speculating on the real life identity of another editor may constitute outing, which is a serious offense." While I mentioned your affiliation from your talk page, a linguist, I did not attack it. I said "as a linguist you should appreciate the clear wording of the Wikipedia rule that determines what gets an article." I don't see the word "appreciate" in many personal attacks. As Michael Corleone would have said said: "This isn't personal, it is just Wikipedia."
It is personal in the sense that you use personal information as a debating point in a discussion and imply that I should agree with you because of it. Lay all comments about my profession aside, dear sir, and do not use personal information as a point of debate. That is the content of your attack. If you want to discuss the issue at hand, then do so, but my profession is irrelevant, as is yours. --Taivo (talk) 06:47, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Making a personal statement, that you are a linguist, is not a personal attack. It also isn't private information anymore, it is public information drawn from your user page. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 15:20, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Richard, when a user does not want his information to be used, even when public, I think it would be better if it were not used, if for nothing else than not to irritate the editor concerned. I should know because in another occasion someone did the same thing to me and I had to tell them that this was not a nice thing to do. So let's drop this point, at least for the sake of moving forward in this discussion. Also using one's credentials as a point in a debate is improper because it may lead to comments that could be considered too personal for comfort, even an ad-hominem argument, which can form the basis of an attack. So it is best avoided. I would also like to add that if you agree with my points, please do not respond to them so that we can end this unproductive thread. Dr.K. λogosπraxis 16:56, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A scandal?

[edit]

A scandal involving his daughter and which led to his resignation, at a time when scandals were almost unthinkable, especially in families of the American Priesthood, and this article is still at AfD mode? Scandalous. Dr.K. λogosπraxis 14:32, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • What guideline says that a person whose family member was involved in some scandal is notable? I thought notability was not inherited. Edison (talk) 20:11, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • No need for the loud bolding Edison. Did you bother to read the article? Did you read he said to his congregation that he is a "condemned man" and that he resigned after 25 years behind the pulpit because of his daughter's scandal? This, on top of everything else per all the "keep" points raised above, and the subsequent coverage of the scandal and its dire ramifications for him, by the NYT makes him notable. Dr.K. λogosπraxis 22:55, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Alexander_Hamilton_(reverend)_(2nd_nomination)&oldid=1221059710"