Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Russell Crowell

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 without prejudice toward recreation if actual sources are used. While I think there is a valid point to be made that older labor leaders were important figures in their time and our coverage of them is spotty at best, there is no consensus/policy/guideline that they are automatically notable. Therefore the WP:GNG is the bar, and without a single source attached to this article it fails that standard. Will gladly userfy if requested. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:46, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Russell Crowell[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. So few hits of any kind, even on Gbooks, that Google autocorrects to "Russell Crowe". Article creator (who is retired) openly admitted COI. Only two inbound links, minimal edits since 2009. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 06:28, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per lack of notable sources that could aid in a biography, as I didn't see any on Google and Yahoo. SwisterTwister talk 06:56, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete A search for sources doesn't turn up ideal coverage:

A memorial page for Crowell, although it was created by a family member. Definitely not independent.
Crowell is mentioned as a speaker here and here, but there's not any other content about him.
Crowell's reelection as president to the Laundry and Dry Cleaning Union is mentioned in this newspaper and here, but there still isn't much beyond this.
This news article is the best I could find, as it has a bit more content of Crowell commenting on a proposition directed at dry cleaning facilities.
Newspaper article shows Crowell as the chair of a courtroom hearing against a local union unit, but still not great coverage.

What we've got here that's verifiable is an article about a guy who was president of a labor union, was reelected, commented on some legislation, and was an invited speaker at some labor conferences. I'll keep an eye out if anyone else finds anything, but while these sources are usable, they just aren't enough for WP:BIO of this individual. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 07:04, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 08:56, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Wikipedia is extremely weak on pre-Internet-era labor union leaders. The president of an AFL-CIO international union ought to be considered per se notable. Google does not really convey the prominence and power of such individuals in the 1930s through the 1960s. Kestenbaum (talk) 18:18, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So you're saying "to hell with this sources thing"? Gee, I wish all BLP articles were like that. Not. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 18:48, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
He may be making an argument similar to the one at WP:POLITICIAN-- that because he was elected (and re-elected) to an international position, he is therefore notable. However, I'm not convinced he should be considered under this criteria, as he's not running for an "office" in the sense that a labor union is an interest group. Furthermore, do not outright dismiss the coverage of Google Books and Scholar, which I checked thoroughly. They contain books from several national libraries listed here. If you can find additional sources, list them here, or better yet, improve the article and let us know. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 19:16, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[the following comment moved here from my talk page. Kestenbaum (talk) 06:05, 11 August 2011 (UTC)][reply]

You're arguing WP:ILIKEIT and WP:ITSNOTABLE, which are weightless arguments. There's no such thing as "per se notable". Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 18:50, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Response. I've been away from WP discussions for a while, so pardon my lack of proper form, and back off on the ridicule.

I certainly remember seeing the phrase "per se notable" used in biographical notability discussions in the past, for example, as to members of national or state legislatures. I was NOT saying "to hell with sources," but rather (as laid out specifically in I-forget-which WP notability policy) noting that people whose prominence predated the Internet are not necessarily fairly represented in a Google search. Yes, that problem is slowly going away with the development of Google Books and Scholar and like resources, but that doesn't mean it's gone.
Today, labor unions have sunk into irrelevance, and may seem like a trivial "interest group", a subset of one faction of one political party. However, I admit to being old enough to remember the 1960s and 1970s, when a much larger portion of the nation's workforce was unionized, and labor leaders were household names, receiving frequent and detailed coverage in the media, editorial cartoons, radio and newspaper interviews, etc. Labor union scandals received as much attention as scandals involving members of Congress today. The AFL-CIO (the presidents of its 40 or 50 member unions) was a body of tremendous political power in both parties, as were its two separate predecessor entities.
Terminology note: "international union" doesn't mean that it draws its significance from crossing national boundaries, since usually the only other country is Canada. Rather, the structure of any large U.S. or Canadian labor union consists of "locals", which are usually numbered and may be quite small, and the "international," which determines policy and structure for all of them, and may have (or had, in the old days) hundreds of thousands of members. The AFL-CIO is a federation of such "international unions".
I had never heard of Crowell before this discussion. Still, labor history is a WP weakness (see, e.g., the brief little article about a major figure like George Meany), and I didn't like seeing the reflexive dismissal of the significance of a union leader. Kestenbaum (talk) 06:05, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Filibustering and saying WP:ILIKEIT helps you not in the least. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 21:31, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ahem, this is not about "me".
I have also been looking for other sources, and I admit that I have come up short. The only reference the New York Times has "russell crowell" was from March 22, 1965, which listed him among "many notables" who participated with Martin Luther King, Jr. on a civil rights march. If he was notable enough to be mentioned there, why aren't there ANY other mentions, not even an obituary? Do we have his name wrong? (But "russ crowell" and "russel crowell" don't yield any other hits.) I'm baffled, but I concede the point on this deletion. Maybe the union he headed was never very large. Kestenbaum (talk) 23:54, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You've got it backwards. His notability is dependent on how many sources there are to be found, not vice versa. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 00:16, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - reading the arguments above, I think they make the valid point that union leaders, while historically relevant, may suffer from Wikipedia:Systemic bias. Basically some shitty Myspace band with a bunch of online reviews and an iTunes album has the qualifications of "enough online sources," but a guy who may have had great impact on regional history, and may be very relevant to people interested in Union history, gets shortchanged cuz he got old before the internet appeared. (Not all union leaders are notable, of course, but if even a portion of the details on his Wiki page can be validated, I'd argue he is). Doesn't change the fact that the page really needs to be cleaned up and the few sources that do exist need to be added in. If after a cleanup, it's apparent that he was either some sort of fraud, or all of the historically relevant facts appear to be original research (i.e. there's basically nothing left), I'd say delete. (awaiting sarcastic comment from otters) Sloggerbum (talk) 18:06, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - As per Sloggerbum. First this is not a BLP. Second, anyone who knows anything about union history on the USA knows who this is. Third, sources must not be online sources or news sources, they can be books. Google books reveals plenty of opportunities for sourcing, and indeed notability. I do not think that GNG requires that the sources be contemporary or have the ubiquitousness of contemporary media, that is indeed Systemic Bias towards contemporary rather than historical figures. I say we keep tag for improvement, and eventually a labor historian will get to it. --Cerejota (talk) 05:12, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Burden of proof's on you. If you THINK sources exist, that's not enough. You have to PROVE they're there. Don't be dumb. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 05:22, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No refs at the start of the afd and none now. Looks a bit like a copyvio too, but where it came from who knows. Szzuk (talk) 11:12, 18 August 2011 (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.