Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/William K. Boone

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. Withdrawn by nominator Big Dom 14:36, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

William K. Boone[edit]

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

Non-notable individual. Article fails to indicate why Boone is significant apart from a few memorials constructed to him. None of the footnotes in the article mention him, and the of the external references, one is a blue book and one only has a mention on one page. William K. Boone gets only the briefest mention in this genealogy of Boones. This article was created here by Boone's grandson after being deleted on the Spanish Wikipedia. -- Lear's Fool 12:42, 2 March 2011 (UTC) Nomination withdrawn. -- Lear's Fool 21:58, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. -- -- Lear's Fool 12:43, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- -- Lear's Fool 12:44, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To: Lear's Fool[edit]

Hi mate,

Thanks for pointing out the deficiencies in the article on my Granpa.

Perhaps I followed strictly your name-sake's advice, much too closely (and "to the letter", as we say in Spanish, my native language):

"Mark it, nuncle.

Have more than thou showest,

Speak less than thou knowest,

Lend less than thou owest,

Ride more than thou goest,

Learn more than thou trowest,

Set less than thou throwest;

Leave thy drink and thy whore,

And keep in-a-door,

And thou shalt have more

Than two tens to a score."

(King Lear, act I, scene 4, line 645)

First of all, let me point out that I -- acting the grandson -- was the one who inserted the commentary that the article had been previously twice removed from the Wikipedia in Spanish. I did not deem it appropiate to elaborate on the reasons that may have lurked under such actions. I have taken my time in elaborating the English version of the article. Just recently, a Wikipedia friend sugested that he would be re-submitting my grandfather's article to the Spanish Wikipedia and would assist me in documenting the references. He started on it late last night, just shortly after midnight.

Secondly, the "blue-book", as it is well known among historians in Veracruz, turned out to be a misnomer. Its full name in English is "State of Veracruz, Facts about Mexico, The Country of the Future, The Blue Book of Mexico". It was originally published in 1923 when the bad times of the Mexican Revolution seemed to be over and the future looked promissing. It was only "one brief shining moment", as those dreams soon turned to dust. But my Granpa's legacy lived on. My Granpa is mentioned extensively throughout the book; see pages 15, 67, 170. 177, 178, 179, 180, 181, 196-198, 197 (article authored by himself), 199.

You surely are aware of the fervent nationalism that swept over Mexico after the Mexican Revolution of 1910-1920, and of the Yankee go home sentiment that has pervaded politics in Latin America, particularly shortly after World War II. It should be no surprise that my grandfather was very much ignored by history books and that his contributions were instead credited to revolutionary generals - re: the Stadium at Xalapa. But, surprisingly enough, he did receive (albeit, posthumously) some recognition. That alone makes him quite notable, I should say. Very much unique, I might add, he being a U.S. citizen (a consul, at some time) living in Mexico in those convulsive times. Inspite of adverse circumstances, he had good loyal friends that stood by him and his memory, even many years after he had died, and who went to extremes to have his name remembered, even when no Boones have lived in Xalapa after the 1960s.

In submiting the article to the English Wikipedia (thus to shelter it away from nationalistic editors) I had assumed that photographic evidence --some of it published in Popular Mechanics of 1923-- would be proof enough that he was the one who had "built" the Stadium -- the first one of its kind in Latin America (in the style that was accustomed in Classical Greece), and that the Stadium ought to carry his name (or at least show a token memorial) instead of sporting the name of a revolutionary leader.

Also, I had assumed that my Granpa's project of building a spiral twin road" up to the rim of a crater of an extinct volcano --documented in detail in that same issue of Popular Mechanics-- which eventually helped Xalapa in becoming the permanent state capital of Veracruz, would require no further praise coming from a third-party.

I am trying to make up for those shortages. My sister Carmen, being a historian, has provided me with more references to substantiate my Granpa's case. I am starting to add and/or clarify these references in his Wikipedia article.

If these are not good enough credentials for a man to be considered notable then all I can say is (one of my favorite quotes from Shakespeare):

"This cold night will turn us all to fools and madmen."

(King Lear, act III, scene 4, line 1876)

In any case, "don't worry mate, she'll be right".

Cheers,--Wkboonec (talk) 22:11, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 01:27, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yikes. Filibuster much? Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 02:55, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Sufficient career achievement to merit encyclopedic biography. If they're still running a race named after the feller, it's pretty definitely a public figure worthy of inclusion. Not all family bios merit the kiss of death... Carrite (talk) 03:55, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. These potential sources need to be taken into account: [1][2]. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:45, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Although the article as drafted did not make the case for notability as clearly as the author's statement above, and although the references as made could have pointed more clearly at the notability of this subject, it still seems there is enough here for an article, especially if some of the references pointed out by Phil Bridger are harvested and employed. The article could use some development, but I don't think it should simply be deleted. Tkotc (talk) 00:24, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (but) - The man appears “noted” in Wiki terms, if only for the “still running a race” observation by Carrite - there are many articles which exist with less than this photograph of a poster – not a valid argument I know. I think his article in Popular Mechanics would be the type of thing that would allow many a lesser personage to survive on Wikipedia. However, the thing in large part appears like a page from a genealogical one-name-society web site, pushing it close to promotion - though I understand that this was probably not the intention. Enthusiasm is the driver here I think – not a bad thing. The earlier versions of the article, ‘though not perfect, are better. So, I can’t see the reason for a family tree, the Biographical Sketch with its un-needed sub-sections and trivia introduction, his son’s birth certificate, links that can only be read in Spanish, and Notes that point to notable ancestors who are an “inspiration to him and his descendants”. What has his descendants got to do with anything unless they are worthy of Wiki articles? – and we all have notable ancestors if we look hard enough. And his Legacy – is he noted anywhere as a significant genealogist or collector? This article should be re-written to Wiki standards, but I suspect that if it’s “nodded through” it will disappear under the radar, and nothing will change other than with the addition of hyperbole and yet more photographs (already too many) by those not-disinterested. Keep, but with a copy-edit from an editor unrelated to Boone. Acabashi (talk) 14:51, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Acabashi's analysis is a good one - if we handwave this through, it will likely fall through the cracks. There is development to be done, as noted, but the subject probably merits inclusion. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 13:54, 17 March 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.