Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/James F. 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.
The result was No Consensus, Speedy Keep. Nishkid64 20:01, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Likely fails WP:BIO. No sources. Hardly any notability to justify inclusion. Húsönd 02:37, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Seems to fail WP:BIO and not notable enough. Hello32020 02:52, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per above. Pcbene 13:54, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete NN. --Kf4bdy talk contribs 23:36, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep President of two fairly well-known colleges. The New York Times and campus newspaper have done articles about him. JChap2007 01:26, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The NY Times reference is inacessible to non-subscribers, content cannot be evaluated. The campus paper I wouldn't qualify as an independent third party source.--Húsönd 02:14, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Even the free preview of that NY Times article shows he's the main subject of it and it also confirms the main assertation of him being the president of those two universities. --Oakshade 06:41, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Being available on the internet has never been a prerequisite for being a source. Also, let me be more specific and note that it's a student newspaper and these are generally free of control by (and frequently critical of) the institution's administration. JChap2007 17:32, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment It is not a prerequisite but if I cannot verify then I cannot confirm as well. As for the student paper, I do agree that they're usually independent, but as local, NN publications I wouldn't consider them as valid to assert notability.--Húsönd 17:55, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Your requirement that the source itself and not merely the subject be notable is something I've never heard of. In addition WP:BIO does not exclude local newspapers from the list of sources that can be used to establish notability. Indeed the vast majority of daily newspapers are local. WP:V requires only that the source be verifiable, not that it be verifiable sitting at your computer. JChap2007 18:09, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment On the other hand, WP:V does make clear references to the usage of sources of dubious reliability.--Húsönd 19:14, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Now I'm guessing your verifiability concerns relate to the fact that one of the sources is a student newspaper rather than that you cannot access the NYT article online. Whether student newspapers are reliable is, I suppose, a matter of opinion. Ones at good schools are probably reliable concerning topics that you don't exactly have to be Woodward and Bernstein to report on. JChap2007 20:46, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment On the other hand, WP:V does make clear references to the usage of sources of dubious reliability.--Húsönd 19:14, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Your requirement that the source itself and not merely the subject be notable is something I've never heard of. In addition WP:BIO does not exclude local newspapers from the list of sources that can be used to establish notability. Indeed the vast majority of daily newspapers are local. WP:V requires only that the source be verifiable, not that it be verifiable sitting at your computer. JChap2007 18:09, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment It is not a prerequisite but if I cannot verify then I cannot confirm as well. As for the student paper, I do agree that they're usually independent, but as local, NN publications I wouldn't consider them as valid to assert notability.--Húsönd 17:55, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep - I find that being the president of the prestigious Trinity College (one of the Little Ivies) very notable. Is really no sources the issue? Is proof needed that he really is the college president? Here - [1] - (inserted into article). --Oakshade 06:34, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I am not convinced. While it's good that you provided an extra source for the article, I am reluctant to accept that being the president of the college asserts notability per se. College presidents come and go, I would rather prefer to see some of his achievements documented in an easily accessible, third party source.--Húsönd 16:03, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment He's not notable because "presidents come and go"?? Well, that's a POV disagreement. Besides, he was president of Kalamazoo College for 8 years, not a "come and go" tenure. And that he's the primary subject of a NY Times article shows notability from a reliable source. --Oakshade 16:22, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment That is not what I meant with "presidents come and go". What I meant is that there's thousands of people who are and have been presidents of colleges, and notability should be asserted beyond that simple fact. Unless third-party sources document his notable achievements while president, I cannot deem this person as notable enough to justify an encyclopedic article about him.--Húsönd 17:55, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment That's your POV. I think alot of people think that being the president of a prestigious college (actually 2 in this case) is a notablie acheivement in itself (the NY Times thought so) and easily worthy of an encyclopedic article. --Oakshade 19:06, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment That is not what I meant with "presidents come and go". What I meant is that there's thousands of people who are and have been presidents of colleges, and notability should be asserted beyond that simple fact. Unless third-party sources document his notable achievements while president, I cannot deem this person as notable enough to justify an encyclopedic article about him.--Húsönd 17:55, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment He's not notable because "presidents come and go"?? Well, that's a POV disagreement. Besides, he was president of Kalamazoo College for 8 years, not a "come and go" tenure. And that he's the primary subject of a NY Times article shows notability from a reliable source. --Oakshade 16:22, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep The two colleges listed are fairly notable, and the president of them seems notable to me, as well. I agree with the comments of the above two votes. However, I think the article could use some clean-up; he's not notable for the skunk-killing adventures of his dogs. --TheOtherBob 21:44, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete The person isn't notable. The college is. --SandyDancer 01:03, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete The NYTimes article is one source for notability. The college newspapers are reliable sources for the article, but not for a claim of notability, because college newspapers always cover the seniormost administrators from time to time. Having only one independent coverage is not sufficient to establish notability to WP:BIO standards. GRBerry 19:17, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep More notable than the average college professor. Pivotal role in Kalamazoo College history; emerging as pivotal role at Trinity. His dogs' relationship to skunks really is irrelevant and doesn't belong in the article, but that doesn't mean the subject isn't relevant.K95 18:59, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep notable as president of two well-known colleges. NawlinWiki 05:59, 7 November 2006 (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.