Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Foxhall A. Parker Sr.

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 keep. (ESkog)(Talk) 17:16, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Foxhall A. Parker Sr.

[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

Foxhall A. Parker Sr. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

U.S. Navy Commodore (United States) who commanded USS Constitution for a year or so in 1842. Also apparently commanded the Home Squadron in 1851. Page has only one ref and has been tagged refimprove since 2008. While there are a few sources I don't believe they amount to SIGCOV in multiple RS necessary to meet WP:GNG. Mztourist (talk) 05:59, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Mztourist (talk) 06:01, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 13:57, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Let's be clear. The one source is a 123 year old book on the history of the family he was a part of. I am not sure such a work, even published 5 years ago, would be considered a reliable source to document things that were an actual clain to notability. Not everyone who was the chief officer for the USS Constitution is default notable, and that is where we would have to set it at to find Parker as notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:01, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 10:23, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. As commodore commanding the Home Squadron, one of the main divisions of the US Navy at the time, he would clearly seem to be notable. The fact he held this post is easily confirmed by a Google search. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:45, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that he held the post is not disputed, nor is it inherently notable. Mztourist (talk) 04:36, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:58, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America1000 15:34, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. EpicPupper 18:25, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that he commanded the Home Squadron or East India Squadron doesn't establish notability. Where is "historic and major positions" a notability guideline? Only SIGCOV in multiple RS establishes notability.Mztourist (talk) 04:18, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete In my WP:Before I'm struggling to find anything beyond directory naval listings and mentions of his relations to his more well-known sons. The sources given here are mostly about his family. We know when he held certain ranks and commands, but there's not much info on if he really did anything of note during his service. If we could find another source more focused on him and his career akin to the USS Constitution Museum entry I'd be inclined to change my mind. -Indy beetle (talk) 10:34, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Indy beetle: additional sources and information added, including: one of two signatories of the historic Treaty of Wanghia which was historically the first Sino-American pact; his role in releasing hostages from Cuba; his role in a dispute with the British that almost led to a Anglo-American conflict; advised the German government on how to organize their navy. A Google Books search on "East India Squadron foxhall" came back with nearly a dozen pages of results and there might be more with similar key terms like "greytown foxhall", etc.. -- GreenC 16:32, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Per the provision of more sources I think this passes GNG so I'm switching my vote to Keep. -Indy beetle (talk) 05:08, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Is the Encyclopedia of Virginia Biography the "country's standard national biographical dictionary" as required by ANYBIO #3? Mztourist (talk) 05:09, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I was thinking of the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Millie Lawson Bethell Paxton discussion, where the closing comment was A clear consensus for keep based on the presence of the subject's entry in the Dictionary of Virginia Biography, and some of the discussion was based on WP:ANYBIO and suggested that when there is an entry, it indicates a likelihood of other sources existing; in this case, that has also been established by the sources added to the article. Beccaynr (talk) 05:32, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Then it seems the closer made a mistake, because a state's biography isn't the "country's standard national biographical dictionary" as required by ANYBIO #3. Mztourist (talk) 15:32, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It seems possible that the closer was reflecting the rough consensus of the discussion about the significance of the entry and the indication of the likely existence of additional sources. And at the time of the closing, the WP:ANYBIO criteria had not been edited diff to remove the "or similar publication" language - I have not been able to find whether there was any discussion on the change to the criteria and the apparent past consensus about the support an entry in a 'similar publication' can provide for notability, but regardless, the entry appears to be one of multiple independent and reliable sources that support notability per WP:BASIC. Beccaynr (talk) 16:20, 23 April 2021 (UTC) And thank you for calling my attention to the change in the criteria, it is appreciated. Beccaynr (talk) 16:30, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete As far as I can tell the article is based on one major RS, which was essentially misquoted both times it was used to discuss Parker's actions in the Caribbean (Long's "Gold Braid and Foreign Relations"). And Long's book doesn't go into any real detail about Parker, who honestly feels more like a spectator each time he's mentioned. Intothatdarkness 14:49, 23 April 2021 (UTC) I took another look at what was cited from Long and am removing weak from my !vote. In my view Parker didn't do anything notable. Intothatdarkness 16:58, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"the article is based on one major RS" (emphasis added). That source is used 3 times out of 21 citations, or 14% of the article. GNG says nothing about "major" sources. -- GreenC 02:26, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
And it was misquoted at least twice and exaggerated one additional time. And in any case, the references are more namechecks than anything else...the basic gist being Parker was there and didn't screw anything up. The other sources are family history or obituaries. Evaluation of sources matters, and the job of a family history or obituary is to talk up the person in question. The one RS that wasn't an obit or family history piece is, at the end of the day, mainly namechecking. Intothatdarkness 14:06, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree with your characterization of the sources ("family history or obituaries" except for one is plainly untrue; so is the "namechecks" when is playing a role in events described; and obituaries in RS are perfectly acceptable); and of Foxhall Parker Sr himself ("was there and didn't screw anything up."). For some reason have take an extremely dim view of this article that has extended even to the person himself. -- GreenC 15:06, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You seem to have missed the point when it comes to obituaries. And Long's mentions of Parker clearly convey his impression of an officer who wasn't especially dynamic but wasn't going to make big mistakes either. Long's quote about Parker during his Havana mission (which was changed) sums it up: "It is hard to say to what extent his appeals contributed...but clearly Parker's arguments could have done no harm." In the end, an average officer of no major notability. Intothatdarkness 16:31, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'd also note that if you go back to the actual Army & Navy Journal article Parker's descendant was responding to (27 May, on page 918 of the source listed as reference 7 in the article), it doesn't confirm the offer of flag rank to Parker and notes as an aside that he took with him "several officers of our Navy who had been dismissed for dueling or other offenses not affecting their professional reputations." The same article also mentions an exchange of German naval officers during the same period. Letters to the editor (which is what D. Parker's piece in the ANJ was, after all) aren't always reliable. Intothatdarkness 16:45, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There's only one major reliable source and the person didn't do anything notable. So, failing someone comes up with WP:THREE (or really two since we have one already) major reliable sources I'm not sure what grounds there are to keep this based on. --Adamant1 (talk) 01:59, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The article contains multiple reliable sources, some old some new, notability does not expire with age, we don't favor newer sources over older. GNG says nothing about a requirement for major sources. -- GreenC 02:26, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Where did I say anything about the age of the sources? With the whole "major" thing, the requirements are that they not be trivial. Feel free to use whatever word you want to describe "non-trivial", I could really care less, but I went with major and last time I checked we can do that. --Adamant1 (talk) 04:30, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
WP:BASIC says, If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability, and WP:GNG says Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material, and while the first source in the article is a relatively trivial mention despite including some career information, other sources have more than a trivial mention, including the USS Constitution Museum, which is focused on Parker, Sr., The Virginia Magazine of History and Biography, which includes biographical and career information, the Annual Obituary Notices of Eminent Persons Who Have Died in the United States. For 1857, which includes career information, The Army and Navy Journal, which also includes career information, and the Virginia Encyclopedia of Biography, which also includes career information. Beccaynr (talk) 04:53, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The key word there is "may be combined", not "should be." Sure it's an option to combine sources so something is notable, but it's not obligatory. Nor is it the correct thing to do in every single instance. Obviously context matters. Outside of that, obituaries are by their nature trivial, especially for anyone in the armed services, and ussconstitutionmuseum.org is not an independent source. --Adamant1 (talk) 06:22, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
My read on the 'may' is that it allows the combination when notability is challenged. The context of this particular obituary is in a collection of 'Eminent' persons, so it seems to support notability, and the USS Constituion Museum was incorporated in 1972 as a private, non-profit and non-government funded interpretive complement to USS Constitution, so it appears to be independent. Beccaynr (talk) 14:19, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It's a private mesuem for the ship he commanded. They have a vested interested in writing about him a way that will attract people to said mesuem. In no way is that independepent. Anymore then a webpage for a certain featured animal on a zoos website or one about a ride on the page for Disney Land would be. Adamant1 (talk) 18:45, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree that a regular zoo and especially a Disney Land ride are comparable, because the museum also has a research library, so the information it publishes about Parker, Sr. appears to be based on WP:SCHOLARSHIP. Beccaynr (talk) 23:52, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe if that page was something put out by someone from said research library as part of a research project/printed journal article then I'd be cool with it because the information would be peer reviewed and attributed to someone. As it is though, its just a random page on a website without any attribution except the museum. So there's zero evidence the information was vetted by the research library let alone came from an expert in field or anything. For all we know some random IT person could have created the page based on some version of a Wikipedia article. That kind of thing happens all the time. There at least has to be some kind of attribution in the meantime to prove otherwise and there isn't. Even if it was though id still argue it isn't independent though anymore the various "research magazines" put out by religious groups like the Seventh Day Adventists or Scientology foundation are. Adamant1 (talk) 03:17, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Evidence that this is a scholarly institution includes the Impact + Recognition page of the museum's website, e.g. "accredited by the American Alliance of Museums," and affiliated with the Council of American Maritime Museums and the Smithsonian Institution. Beccaynr (talk) 16:21, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Cool. That's not my argument, it never has been, and I don't appreciate the Strawmaning that it is. Also, it doesn't matter who they are affiliated with. Notability isn't inherited and it's completely ridiculous to say a random anonymous blog post on a website should be used for notability just because whoever runs the website it's hosted on is affiliated with some other organization that is legitimate. Whatever janitorial service cleans the Smithsonian's bathrooms is affiliated with them. That doesn't mean I'd take anything they have to say about 18th century French Impressionism as gospel. Seriously, there should more then that behind your argument to keep an article. Really, if this article was about an actually notable subject everything wouldn't hinge on that one source or you desperately trying to legitimize it in this discussion anyway. Hopefully other "voters" will take of that. --Adamant1 (talk) 01:30, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
To quickly clarify, because I do not wish to WP:BLUDGEON this discussion, I was trying to respond to the suggestion that it might be possible for some random IT person to have created the page based on some version of a Wikipedia article, and I am also not solely relying on the source to support notability, as noted above. And when focusing on the scholarly nature of the institution, I have been thinking of WP:INDEPENDENT, e.g. An "independent" source is one that has no vested interest in the subject. For example, the independent source will not earn any extra money by convincing readers of its viewpoint. A "third-party" source is one that is not directly involved in any transaction related to the subject, but may still have a financial or other vested interest in the outcome. [...] Except when directly specified otherwise in the policy or guideline, it is sufficient for a source to be either independent or third-party, and it is ideal to rely on sources that are both. This is a nonprofit, non-government museum and a research institution, not a random anonymous blog, and it therefore appears to be sufficiently independent and/or third-party to support notability. Beccaynr (talk) 05:40, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
But it's a random anonymous blog post on the website of the institution. Which you seem to be ignoring. Whatever the status of the institution is, it's really second to who wrote the page. I'd love to know how you can ascertain that the page was written by someone with the necessary expertise in the field to be considered an expert or would otherwise be knowledgeable enough on the topic, because there's really no way to know that. It's ridiculous to say that because the "institution" is not anonymous that any given page on their website isn't or that because they are associated with the Smithsonian that every single person all the way from their CEO to their door man is or that they all have the same level of expert knowledge. Like a random cafeteria lady at my local university is just as knowledgeable about history as a Phd history professor is, or even that the librarian chick who organizes the books in the library (and likely writes the random pages on their libraries website) knows as much about Sociology as the people in the sociology department. Let alone that would have same clout anywhere "because hey man, their part of the same institution right?" So a random cafeteria lady or librarian is totally the same as a tenured research professor. Or a random page on the libraries website is exactly the same as a Masters thesis. Whatever. --Adamant1 (talk) 05:58, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that libraries are typically in the business of publishing stuff written by randos with no fact-checking or editorial oversight. The fact that an individual author isn't listed does not seem like a requirement for most sources (dictionaries, encyclopedias, government documents, et cetera often don't specify authors), so it doesn't seem reasonable to apply such a requirement here. jp×g 22:08, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kichu🐘 Need any help? 15:27, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep informative, well-sourced article on notable military person per HEY. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 10:37, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment on sources The majority of sources for this article are obituaries, some cited multiple times in the same paragraph. The Army & Navy Journal citation tracks back to a letter to the editor written by a descendant of the subject, and thus can't be considered impartial (or even probably RS). The article it was written in response to was a piece in the previous ANJ that made far less sweeping claims and made Parker's assignment sound more routine (and even that piece said "Though we do not find any record of the fact, we are informed by an old officer of our Navy" before discussing Parker's assignment). The RS scholarly sources used make scant mention of the subject (and in my view were misrepresented in earlier versions of the article to enhance Parker's role in events). If you evaluate the sources, and check them for accuracy, it reduces the notability of the subject to the point (in my view) he doesn't pass GNG. Intothatdarkness 13:58, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Any how you count it, "the majority of sources are obits" is factually not true. It's easy to tell, obits are published around the year someone died, look a the source dates there is one obit the rest are biographical or monologues. And even it were true (which it is not) so what? You are going out of your way to misrepresent the sources with negative opinions and characterizations. First you said there was was one reliable source ("major") now you admit there are multiple "scholarly sources". You say they make "scant" mention, but the sources describe the events he was involved in sufficiently - it would be hard to write an article with "scant" mentions. The Army & Navy Journal is just one citation of many, the letter itself is a WP:PRIMARY (acceptable) but the fact it was re-published in a RS tells us something about the notability of the topic and the letter - this how we determine if a primary source is notable enough for inclusion, mentions in secondary sources. -- GreenC 16:04, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The letter was published, not republished. It appears only in ANJ. And at the time I made my comment regarding one major RS there was only one in the article. Perhaps if you had backtracked to the original piece in the ANJ you would have understood the context of that letter. And clearly it's possible to write an article of sorts with scant mentions...we're discussing one now. Intothatdarkness 16:32, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I would consider commanders of the Home Squadron, which had an unusual significance in the history of the Caribbean for its era, to be inherently notable. Whether or not this is generally agreed upon, there are typically substantial sources for holders of this position, and there are sufficient sources for this one. I would note that Newspapers.com returns over 190 hits for "Foxhill A. Parker" for the period from 1840 to 1852. BD2412 T 01:16, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep in light of the massive improvements that have been done to the article since nomination. jp×g 22:05, 9 May 2021 (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/Foxhall_A._Parker_Sr.&oldid=1023279689"