Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Burr Caswell

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. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 02:32, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Burr Caswell[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NOTAMEMORIAL. Nearly all of the references are from the family history, all of which are dead links. There's an article in a local newspaper, the Ludington Daily News,[1] and a few lines in the introduction of Ludington Car Ferries.[2] Clarityfiend (talk) 06:45, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

weak keep - Article needs some work. marginal notability. DangerDogWest (talk) 07:08, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:34, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:34, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:34, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as I would've said keep because this seems historical but there's nothing else aside from that. SwisterTwister talk 07:35, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Snow Keep Clearly notable. Lots of sources, and more out there. Apparently you missed them. Is a substantial historical figure in Michigan history. That it "seems historical" per User:SwisterTwister only reveals a recentism bias. This article has been viewed regularly and consistently by our readers. I've added many additional sources. The home/courthouse he built is a registered state historic site. FYI, I've more than ~~tripled~~ more than ~~quadrupled~~ six-fold the references since you nominated it for deletion. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 11:45, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - meets WP:GNG. He constructed the first frame building in Mason County, Michigan. In Mason County he was the first: Coroner, Probate Judge and Surveyor. The Mason County Courthouse county seat was placed at Caswell's house originally, which is now at White Pine Village outdoor museum.--Doug Coldwell (talk) 11:46, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - the article was a DYK back in 2008.--Doug Coldwell (talk) 12:21, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP Aside from the fact that Caswell was a Republican I see no reason to delete this article. He was a significant person in local history. We need more articles such as this one, not less. Einar aka Carptrash (talk) 17:53, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - interesting article. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:28, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. If this article survives, the first, second and third references should be deleted for failing WP:RS. The first two come from a site which has the disclaimer "This site and affiliated Projects make no claims or estimates of the validity of the information submitted." The second also seems to be " courtesy of the Caskey Family Webiste [sic]", presumably the caskeyfamily.com site sourced by the third. Clarityfiend (talk) 02:45, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment to @Clarityfiend: - The second source says at the bottom, Content Copyright 1998-2014 David K Petersen. Well it turns out that you couldn't have a more reliable source than him. Put his name in Google and you get over 4,000 hits. Put his name in Google Books and you get over 800 hits -and- it shows the many books he has written, many especially about Mason County. He is considered the source to go to for information about Mason County. He knows more historical information about Mason County than all other people alive today combined. He writes a weekly history column for the Ludington Daily News. Type in Google his name with "Ludgington Daily News" to see what you get. It so happens that there is a reading room at the Ludington Public Library (Mason County) called "The Petersen Room". Librarians go to him for history information about Northern Michigan. --Doug Coldwell (talk) 18:53, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment to @Clarityfiend: - This is the latest book that Petersen just came out with. --Doug Coldwell (talk) 19:34, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment to @Clarityfiend: - Ludington Daily News 'bio' article on Dave Petersen. --Doug Coldwell (talk) 21:39, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment to @Clarityfiend: - Here is a history on Burr Caswell on Petersen's Homepage. --Doug Coldwell (talk) 19:43, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment to @Clarityfiend: - Here is another article on Burr Caswell that Petersen wrote. --Doug Coldwell (talk) 21:00, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment to @Clarityfiend: - Here is another article on Burr Caswell and his home that Petersen wrote. --Doug Coldwell (talk) 21:02, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment to @Clarityfiend: - I disagree. The existence of a legal disclaimer does not make the source not a WP:RS. And all of these sources parallel the reports from the more than two dozen other WP:RSs in the article. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 09:32, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reply. You consider a site for which the URL isn't even provided a neutral, reliable source? (It's apparently this family genealogy site.) It doesn't matter if it confirms other sources. You can't somehow inherit RS-ity. Clarityfiend (talk) 09:52, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reply. All three of these sites have URLs. You can click on the cited link. So you are misinformed.

The existence of Pro forma legal disclaimers in geneological websites is a testament to the ubiquity of lawyers and their advice. It is irrelevant and has nothing to do with reliability. It has nothing to do with the proposal to delete the article. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 09:58, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And to put a final cut into this, there was no compliance with WP:Before. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 12:58, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You need to read WP:RS. Just having a URL is not sufficient, otherwise all the conspiracy nuts would be having a field day. Posting something great uncle Otto told you during a Christmas dinner doesn't cut it. Clarityfiend (talk) 02:49, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is fallacious red herring argument and an ad hominen attack. There is nothing to suggest that your hypothetical scenario has anything to do with this article or these sources. Slippery slopes can be avoided by looking at what the sources say. Ignoring the other reliable sources, including the ~~six seven~~ eight books, makes no sense. Indeed, the woof and weave of these sources into the fabric this article makes their credibility more likely, not less. We will have to agree to disagree. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 19:00, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In the first place, I was talking solely about the first three references. You chose to expand it beyond that. Who's dangling red herrings now? It appears the article will be kept, but that has nothing to do with this particular issue. When I nominated the article, the urls for the first two references were dead links, and the third source was (and remains) a family genealogy site, which is neither independent nor demonstrably neutral. Plus you can't just wave away the explicit disclaimer for the first two, now that they have working urls. Whether or not Peterson is an expert, he himself has not shown sufficient confidence in the reliability of the information. If he hasn't, why should we? So none of the three pass RS. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:41, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment to @Clarityfiend: - Very well known Michigan historian and author (predecessor of Petersen) James L. Cabot wrote for the Ludington Daily News as a Columnist and came up with the same information on Burr Caswell (see references). --Doug Coldwell (talk) 13:49, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment to @Clarityfiend: - Bio on James Lawrence Cabot, aka James L. Cabot (historian). --Doug Coldwell (talk) 16:46, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment to @Clarityfiend: Petersen will be at the Ludington Public Library Friday (10/30/2015) at 1 P.M. for a 'signing' of his new book. He would love to talk to you about Burr Caswell and where he got his information - if you have a few hours to spare. --Doug Coldwell (talk) 14:22, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Clarityfiend: - That you choose not to recognize Petersen's expertise reveals your larger recalcitrant problem and biased perspective. In any event it is now time us all to stop slaying the slain. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 11:45, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There you go again, distorting the truth. I have no knowledge of Petersen's expertise, so how can I recognize it? His disclaimer states he has not checked the facts. If you have a problem with that, talk to him, not me.

Funny you should accuse me of an "ad hominen attack". I attacked no one; if you are the otherwise hypothetical great uncle Otto or his great nephew, then you are being overly sensitive (and party to a undisclosed conflict of interest). However, you show no scruple about accusing me of having a "larger recalcitrant problem and biased perspective." Now there's an ad hominen attack. Clarityfiend (talk) 21:52, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WP: Duck. Your impervious approach to facts and sources speaks for itself. That you maligned scholar David Petersen (at least you now are spelling his name right) without knowledge, and despite the fact that Doug Coldwell had posted biographical information establishing his credentials (and you now opine that you know nothing of him) is all peculiar.

Most of what I added to this article was here:

(Find sources: "Burr Caswell" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · highbeam · JSTOR)

If you had done your homework and complied with WP:Before, we wouldn't be having this conversation.

And you have the chutzpah to suggest I am related to Burr? With no evidence, just your bare and baseless allegation? 7&6=thirteen (☎) 21:59, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Throughout my long live, people have distorted my last name. One on the many distortions has been "Caswell" - does that make me close enough to be related to him then?--Doug Coldwell (talk) 22:07, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What are you blathering about? The great uncle bit was in reference to the reliability of family genealogy sites. You're the one who's somehow making a personal connection. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:07, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Sorry, for the misunderstanding. No insult intended.

But your persistence in this nomination in the face of the present article and citations makes no sense. This is about what the article could have (See WP:Before) and did become, not about your wishes. The graceful and sensible course would be to withdraw the nomination, make it a Speedy Keep, and not ride this dead horse into the ground. But you nominated it, and I guess you just want to wait a few days before the inevitable Speedy or Snow Keep. Cheers. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 14:02, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - probably everything has changed since the listing, but right now I can't see what is missing for notability. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 00:53, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as quite sufficiently notable. Collect (talk) 16:14, 28 October 2015 (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.