Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joseph Holmes
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. Fram (talk) 12:56, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Joseph Holmes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
Non-notable Montchav (talk) 13:20, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 14:29, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep User:Hoary has added external links to the article that prove this person's notability. Bláthnaid 14:46, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per Bláthnaid. Jfire (talk) 15:58, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletions. – David Eppstein (talk) 01:20, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment With this overly minimalist approach to nomination, it would really be helpful to have the nominator give more details on why the article was listed for AfD and how the subject lacks notability. TheMindsEye (talk) 02:53, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think that you can say how somebody lacks notability. Rather, you just flatly assert it and see whether anyone can contradict you. -- Hoary (talk) 14:38, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep as the Atlantic article suggests that people who are pretty well informed regard him as an expert in the processing and printing of color digital photographs. (I'd agree that the article is now feeble and recently was a lot worse.) -- Hoary (talk) 14:38, 5 February 2008 (UTC) PS, I'm starting to wonder, what with FBM's comments below. -- Hoary (talk) 00:50, 6 February 2008 (UTC) PPS Tyrenius has put a lot of work into this, and more than deserves any praise that I got above. My "keep" vote stays. -- Hoary (talk) 00:51, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete unless some notability relevant references are added. Non-substantial article puts it under "If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be needed to prove notability". References so far fail independence since we have the Breakthroughs Berkeley interview (subject has a degree from that department[1]), and the Atlantic article[2] where the author states flat out "Holmes is an old friend". Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 17:57, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Ouch. I sit corrected. Though I think you're a little harsh on the Atlantic article, in that when writing a (non-whimsical, substantive) article for a magazine such as that, I don't suppose you can get that much mileage out of an old friend unless you can also reassure your editor that the old friend really knows what he's talking about. Still, yes, the article needs reinforcement (or deletion). -- Hoary (talk) 00:50, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- That's a misunderstanding of "independent". It doesn't mean the author or publisher has no connection with the subject. It means that someone other than the subject has written/published the material. Both the cases cited are therefore independent. Many writers and publishers would consider themselves to be friends of their subjects, but wikipedia does not veto the source on that basis. Tyrenius (talk) 01:01, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The concept is that "people independent of the subject itself have actually considered the subject notable enough that they have written and published non-trivial works that focus upon it" (WP:BIO, note #4). Was the "subject notable enough" to generate those two independent references? No, the dependant criteria one author had to follow was the subject was an alumni, the other author’s first criteria mentioned was the subject was a "friend". Even if these mentions were independant, we still seem to be "trivial" here. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 00:43, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- You have failed to continue note 4 to show what is considered to be dependent. Here is the example given of that: "Thus, entries in biographical dictionaries that accept self-nominations (such as the Marquis Who's Who) do not prove notability." The specific example is given because this directory will virtually accept anyone, and the text is provided by the subject directly. Neither of the two journals in question would carry articles on that basis. One was written by Kenneth Brower and the other an interview conducted by Cyril Manning. There is nothing in the guideline to state there must be no connection whatsoever with the publishing entity, and it would be absurdly unworkable were that so, disqualifying a huge percentage of sources. The Manning piece is 1,000 words and the Brower piece is 2,400 words. Note 5 states: "Non-triviality is a measure of the depth of content of a published work, and how far removed that content is from a simple directory entry or a mention in passing that does not discuss the subject in detail." Clearly they are both considerably removed from a simple directory entry and do discuss the subject in detail. The example given of trivial is, "a birth certificate or a 1-line listing on an election ballot form." Tyrenius (talk) 03:21, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The concept is that "people independent of the subject itself have actually considered the subject notable enough that they have written and published non-trivial works that focus upon it" (WP:BIO, note #4). Was the "subject notable enough" to generate those two independent references? No, the dependant criteria one author had to follow was the subject was an alumni, the other author’s first criteria mentioned was the subject was a "friend". Even if these mentions were independant, we still seem to be "trivial" here. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 00:43, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- That's a misunderstanding of "independent". It doesn't mean the author or publisher has no connection with the subject. It means that someone other than the subject has written/published the material. Both the cases cited are therefore independent. Many writers and publishers would consider themselves to be friends of their subjects, but wikipedia does not veto the source on that basis. Tyrenius (talk) 01:01, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Coverage in some for-pay articles here: [3] Jfire (talk) 01:23, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- But only four, and at least two sound like mere mentions. The Chicago Sun-Times article might be worth three bucks, though; I'll have to consult my accountant first. -- Hoary (talk) 01:54, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Tyrenius has since added a lot. -- Hoary (talk) 00:51, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Ouch. I sit corrected. Though I think you're a little harsh on the Atlantic article, in that when writing a (non-whimsical, substantive) article for a magazine such as that, I don't suppose you can get that much mileage out of an old friend unless you can also reassure your editor that the old friend really knows what he's talking about. Still, yes, the article needs reinforcement (or deletion). -- Hoary (talk) 00:50, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Yes, I was just about to say that! Some of the sources are slight, but telling nevertheless, as multiple sources validate notability. It would be good if someone could add material from the external links and then use them as references instead. Tyrenius (talk) 01:05, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- KEEP OneMarkus (talk) 03:23, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. The references in the article demonstrate that he is regarded as a pioneer in his field. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:57, 7 February 2008 (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.