Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Francis Gary Powers Jr.

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 delete. While there were sources that mentioned the subject, the delete camp argued, and developed consensus for, the position that the sources' failure to mention anything reflecting his individual notability was fatal to having a stand-alone article on him. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 18:50, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Francis Gary Powers Jr.[edit]

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

The subject of this biography is mainly known as the son of the legendary pilot Francis Gary Powers. The only achievements I can see for Francis Gary Powers Jr. are: (1) he founded the Cold War Museum, and (2) he received an award from the Junior Chamber of Commerce. I hereby submit that his founding of the museum can be adequately covered in the article on the museum, and his award from the Junior Chamber of Commerce can be listed at List of Ten Outstanding Young Americans and therefore there is no need to have an article for him. Victor Victoria (talk) 07:42, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep His personal notability has been established in the article, and there is not undue weight given to his father.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 08:36, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I expected there would be little or no reliably sourced material on Powers, but there is quite a bit of coverage. Apparently he lectures on how close the US came to nuclear war, but avoided it through negotiation and treaties. In view of the recent controversy over US nuclear arms treaty with Russia, and the fact this controversy is likely to continue for several months, there might be additional news coverage of Powers. Therefore, I vote keep and I have added RS articles to the External links section that seem to have material that can be included in Powers' bio. -KeptSouth (talk) 11:39, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good research, however Wikipedia is not a link farm. I won't withdraw my nomination until somebody takes the material out there and adds it to his article to show that he has made contributions to the field. Victor Victoria (talk) 16:51, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

With all due respect, you are mis-applying the term "link farm" in this instance. Finding and adding reliable sources is a step toward improving an article. Per WP:EL "acceptable links include those that contain further research that is accurate and on-topic". KeptSouth (talk) 20:51, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not saying those references are not legitimate. I'm just saying that adding those references is not enough to sustain the article's viability. Victor Victoria (talk) 00:03, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually you were saying link farm. Because Link farms are "mere collections of external links...[that] dwarf articles and detract from the purpose of Wikipedia", I said you were misapplying the term.KeptSouth (talk) 13:21, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I just wanted to add that if he was an author, and wrote a book about the topic, then I would withdraw my nomination. But just being a speaker, in my opinion, is not enough to make him notable. Victor Victoria (talk) 18:50, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have to add to my earlier Keep comment because it seems the nominator has moved the goalposts with additional comments of his own. According to WP:NN, notability for a stand alone article means "worthy of notice" and requires reliable third party "significant coverage". These features are already present. Notability does not require a "significant contribution" in a field or the authorship of a book as Victor is now claiming. I believe Powers is notable due to his founding of the museum, his lecturing and the third party RS coverage he has already received. His father is a factor, though a minor one. It is very possible that in the near future, Powers will get a bit more coverage, and we will thus know more about him and his views on cold war history or nuclear treaties. One reason is that the topic of arms treaties with Russia promises to be hot one in the U.S. Congress within the next few months. Also, it seems the museum has found a permanent location, which will generate more coverage and RS information on Powers. In other words, my view is that the subject is now notable, but if one thinks it is in a gray area, then one should to look to the future -- and, this article has definite potential for expansion due to events that are presently being stirred. An AfD can always be proposed in the future; this can be revisited, but in the meantime, I believe the article currently meets notability requirements and information should not be lost thru article deletion. KeptSouth (talk) 13:16, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:10, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:11, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete To be notable means having done something notable, (or in a very few special cases being born in a notable position) and the GNG is only a guide to that. As the keep comments themselves indicate that his lectures are so nonnotable that his actual views are undocumented, he can hardly be notable for giving them. "It is very possible that in the near future, Powers will get a bit more coverage," and "there might be additional news coverage" is pure CRYSTAL, and can equally be said of any garage band. The topics he lectures on are notable is given as another keep reason--that makes him no more notable than any random high school teacher. The Jaycee's gave him an award for "Social Awareness & History " -- apparently meaning, in this case, that he didn't do anything, but had an historic name they wished people to be aware of. That's their business,--as far as we are concerned, it can only serve to lower the significance of the award. DGG ( talk ) 00:22, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per DGG. Most coverage seems to be about his museum, which already has an article, not himself. Mention of him and his museum may also be made in his father's article, but there's not enough encyclopedic content for an article about the son beyond what properly belongs in the museum's or the father's article. Sandstein 08:47, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, pretty much what DGG and Sandstein said. Further, any article which DGG thinks should be deleted, um, well, in all likelihood should be deleted. T. Canens (talk) 09:46, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per DGG. What's worth keeping can be merged to the museum article, he does not appear to be notable. --Nuujinn (talk) 16:26, 5 December 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.