Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/DW Norris

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 keep. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:03, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

DW Norris[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article fails to demonstrate the notability of DW Norris. Wikipedia's notability guideline says, "A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." Unfortunately, this article has only one reference, of which only one of 25 sections relates to DW Norris. Thus, it has neither sources (plural) nor "significant coverage". Eddie Blick (talk) 01:38, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 12:19, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 12:19, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - clearly significant after quick BEFORE. I added some references. There are probably much-much more (e.g. for instance - [1] mentions him several times on this rather bitty issue - but need to get to refs there) - need to hit the print archives + books for the period (1900-1950) - not as easily searchable, especially since his name comes up in each retirement/appointment piece on one of his descendants in Lennox.Icewhiz (talk) 12:45, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:53, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iowa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:53, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades^Godric 08:16, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- this is not encyclopedically relevant content; accomplishments are not significant enough to warrant an encyclopedia entry. The link offered above is to a blog post, and is not a suitable source. K.e.coffman (talk) 21:57, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I did not claim it was a source. Just that the refs used to build it would be. I did some refs to the article. The guy is clearly notable, but searvhing for sources for the period is more difficult than for contemporary figures.Icewhiz (talk) 04:21, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note - he is named (dw norris + lennox) in 92 books available in google-books. I'm adding some. to the article.Icewhiz (talk) 05:25, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Done - sources now should meet any reasonable standard for a 1900-1950 business and publishing figure.Icewhiz (talk) 05:54, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:15, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The additional new sources provided indicate sufficient WP:DEPTH of coverage in reliable sources that the subject (perhaps narrowly) meets our notability guidelines. — O Fortuna^{semper crescis, aut decrescis} 12:00, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep Why we list for deletion articles about people who lived before digital age is beyond me. That so much is available about this person astounds me. Dloh cierekim 16:01, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. WP:HEYMANN] performed by User:Icewhiz puts solid sourcing on page for this notable early-20th century businessman. Shout out to User:Dlohcierekim, we should make a Dlohcierekim rule; no AfDs to be proposed on pre-1990 topics unless proposing editor can demonstrate the ability to locate the index in a hard-copy book.E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:32, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Not all of the sources are reliable, but enough of them are to establish notability, in my humble opinion. Seems like a significant figure to me. CrispyGlover (talk) 14:39, 2 May 2017 (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.