Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Canadian Who's Who

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. Since no admin seems to want to step up to the plate and close this ..... no definitive argument that outweighs all the others has been put forward, despite relisting. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 09:23, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Canadian Who's Who[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Unsourced article about vanity publication generally considered unreliable as a source since the content is user provided, and the business model involves sales of the books to its subjects. Little media coverage to establish notability, beyond the idea of Who's Who in general, for which an article already exists. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 08:16, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 08:49, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 08:49, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This title was notable and reliable when it was published by University of Toronto Press, and arguably still is, since Grey House Publishing Canada is a reputable publisher of reference books. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 13:42, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

We've all heard of Who's Who, but I'm more concerned that this one doesn't have the required coverage to pass WP:GNG. A compromise might be to simply list it on the Who's Who page and redirect, but even that requires a single reliable source. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 18:09, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. @Eastmain: AfDs are not decided votes or statements, but on providing significant independent verifable reliable sources. Britishfinance (talk) 13:57, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Eastmain, the subject's publisher might be the most "reputable publisher of reference books" on the planet but that would be entirely irrelevant as to the subject's Wikinotability. Notability in our everyday lives is not the same as notability in Wikipedia. -The Gnome (talk) 17:25, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:TEXTBOOKS - it's obviously not a textbook but serve a very different function and come to be published through very different processes than do books intended for the general public seems to apply. There's a lot of mentions of the book (like [1]) that wouldn't meet NBOOK#1, but I think are sufficient here. We have an article on Yellow Pages Group, and this seems similar. power~enwiki (π, ν) 18:34, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be happy with a single profile in a reliable source at this point. The link you posted with the passing mention suggests the book's information is unreliable, weakening its notability IMHO. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 01:55, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. @Power~enwiki: But you haven't given a single solid quality independent reliable source. I don't find the "lots of mentions" that you say except in a few (and it is still a few) lower grade web sites. I can't find a single strong high quality RS on this subject. And a notable Who's Who of Canada should be appearing in every major Canadian newspaper etc. But I can find none except for the single link you offer, which I don't think is a major RS. thanks Britishfinance (talk) 14:02, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I was considering nominating this myself, but these two sources [2] [3] gave me pause. Honestly undecided at this point. – Teratix ₵ 06:51, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I can't find the Who's Who info in the first link, but the second is OK. Interestingly again an article about how unreliable it is as a publisher of facts. We'd never let a company article on the site with only 1 or 2 pieces from decades ago. I also worry that if the article stays, it will seem that Wikipedia is somehow validating the book, giving it the appearance of notability, and people might start using it as a source for the unverified information it contains. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 19:43, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
For the first source, the info starts in the fourth paragraph. – Teratix ₵ 01:17, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't show the article unless I register for an account. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 19:46, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
There's a little green arrow which I can click on to see the full article without registering. The relevant parts of the article are The Ottawa press gallery of the London Times ... published a neat red volume called The Canadian Who's Who in May 1910. ... The sketches were quite brief, but Peterborough, with at least 40 entries, seemed well-represented. Obviously there's more than that, but I don't want to quote too much per WP:COPYQUOTE. The rest is an examination of the entries related to Peterborough and a short conclusion where the author compares reading the book to using the internet.

I absolutely agree that the book is unreliable and Wikipedia shouldn't be validating it – the solution to that is to rewrite the article using the new sources which show its unreliability. (Incidentally, the bulk of the current text has been contributed by a WP:SPA operating on the publisher's request. [4] It's been edited, but some of it is still there).

On the other hand, even with the new articles sourcing is still quite slim. – Teratix ₵ 01:29, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 09:38, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - a Who's Who of notable Canadians is surely notable, and probably has fewer Canadian names in it than does Wikipedia. However, the article needs more sources and references (as it stands, it only has one reference, and this is to the book's own website). Vorbee (talk) 17:57, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Vorbee AfDs are not decided votes or statements, but on providing significant independent verifable reliable sources. Britishfinance (talk) 13:58, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Vorbee, you're suggesting to Keep the article but your reasons for that justify Deletion. -The Gnome (talk) 17:25, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I'm hoping a closer will recognize that there are no policy-based arguments or sufficient sourcing to suggest a keep. This simply doesn't meet the same standard we'd hold any BLP or company article to; rather, notability is being confused with familiarity of the Who's Who brand name, which is in the public domain. From what we've seen so far, the book is filled with unverified, self-written articles from people who buy the book to show that they are in it. I don't think there's evidence that this particular version warrants a content fork/carve out from the main Who's Who article. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 21:41, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I am rather confused about this proposal. There are several other articles about Who's Who in a particular country, such as UK, Australia and France. So, in what way is this article different from the others, or should we be looking at a group proposal for all "Who's Who in X"? at this point, I think this article could be improved, but I am inclined to say "Keep" unless we delete all the others and I see no reason to delete the ones I have looked at. --Bduke (talk) 07:59, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The Canadian Who's Who, although making use of the same Who's Who concept as other publications such as Who's Who (UK), is not otherwise related to them. So there is no obligation to keep or delete all for the sake of consistency – it comes down to whether the sourcing meets WP:GNG or perhaps WP:NBOOK. – Teratix ₵ 12:22, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Bduke: I'm just focused on this one for now, per WP:OTHERSTUFF. Notability is not inherited, but I worry that people are confusing having heard of the Who's Who series with notability of every book with that name. With a single source mentioning the book, it could go on the list of Who's Who books on that page, but doesn't warrant its own article. That's the crux of the issue. From what I've seen participating in AfDs, there are few other books or companies or people whose articles would survive AfD with such insufficient sourcing. BTW - this is the notability criteria for books. Wikipedia:Notability (books)#Criteria. #1 is the only one that could possibly apply here, and I don't see a single article where the book is the subject - only where it is briefly mentioned in conjunction with another subject. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 19:39, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I am aware of most of what you say, but several matters are not clear. Are all the others related to each other? If so, the same sources can be used and the Canadian one might be an outlier, but it is still doing the same job. I would not know where to look for sources, but it seems possible that we are missing sources for this Who's Who. --Bduke (talk) 20:39, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
All very good questions, and the difficulty we have finding the answers points to less notability rather than more. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 23:00, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Bduke: As I mentioned above, the Canadian Who's Who is not related to the others apart from the essential Who's Who concept. Who's Who is a genre, akin to, say, science fiction. Even though science fiction itself is notable, and many science fiction books are notable, that doesn't mean any given science fiction book is notable. – Teratix ₵ 00:19, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Bduke: The links to other Who's Who distracted me initially; but when I stuck to finding several significant independent RS on this particular subject per the rules, I came up short (per my nomination to Delete below). It is not by accident this article has no independent material RS. Britishfinance (talk) 13:51, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 09:51, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Possible merge as there does seem to be a lack of sourcing. However, editors above have aptly pointed out that other notability factors may apply because of the type of topic, and so it seems the matter isn't as simple as the general notability guideline. 24.84.14.158 (talk) 22:13, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment : If there are no sources, we delete. There are no two ways about it. As to the existence of the Who's Who franchise, it does not by itself justify an automatic inclusion in Wikipedia of any related article. -The Gnome (talk) 11:13, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Per The Gnome. There are policies around notability on WP and this publication does not meet them; not even borderline. Britishfinance (talk) 14:10, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and comment by The Gnome. This is no textbook, the article is unsourced. Ifnord (talk) 17:11, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Solid Delete. I came to this article expecting a Keep but there are almost no significant RS on this publication (or site) to support WP:GNG. This article has existed for over a decade, and not a single material independent RS has been added. References quoted above like this MacLean's, and this Perterborough Examiner are not enough as they are not about Who's Who, but just refer to it (we are not questioning existance, but notability). This Canadian journalist's blog is the only actual article on Canadian Who's Who but it is not acceptable for WP as an RS; it does explain why the publication was doomed, as you pay your subscription and write your own bio (the reason why it ended up in the MacLean's article above). Media-type GNG cases should be straightforward to prove, as by definition being in the media sector, they should throw up lots of RS. Hardly a single major Canadian newspaper or Canadian television network seems to be interested in the Canadian Who's Who? This has almost nothing in terms of a GNG RS, and certainly when the requirement for "several" significant indepenent RS is added, it is a clear fail. Britishfinance (talk) 13:43, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. Nothing of substance is out there to support its notability. All we have supporting inclusion are variations of WP:ILIKEIT. -The Gnome (talk) 17:25, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:NBOOK ("The book has been the subject of two or more non-trivial published works...")[5][6] Lourdes 18:46, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The first reference is to the book itself (it used to be published by TUP), the second reference is a brief mention in the 1998 book of Canadian Trivia. The Canadian Who's Who I'm afraid has not been the "subject" of two independent published works. It has not been the "subject" of any independent published works (that I could find). Notability, especially in the media space, should be straightforward. I don't think we should be relying on such arguments. Britishfinance (talk) 19:07, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Are you saying that the first reference printed by University of British Columbia Press with extensive coverage of the book is the book "Canadian Who's Who" itself? Are you saying that the 400 words published about Canadian Who's Who in the national trivia book by Dundurn Press is "a brief mention"?!! What are you saying? And here's a third book review by Sources.com; it's a full page, before you say "a brief mention" again.[7] This is apart from the fact that The Chicago Manual of Style considers The Canadian Who's Who amongst their recommended list of biography sources ("...a starting point for writers, editors, and others involved in publishing ... they reflect the specific demands of different disciplines and the evolving traditions of writing, editing, and publishing."[8] To belabour the point, there are many citations to the book on scholar.google.com.[9] Lourdes 01:42, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sources.com is clearly unreliable. See [10], organisations pay for their profile. – Teratix ₵ 01:49, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That page is about Sources members, who can get profile news releases released like here, which is clearly demarcated. Lourdes 01:58, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not one of the listed sources above is the type of in-depth coverage of the book that we'd expect in order to show notability. When was it first published? Who owns it and started it? What's the history? None of that coverage exists despite numerous attempts by the many experienced editors here to find it. Everything points to a merge and redirect to the Who's Who article as an example of the genre that isn't notable on its own. A single line there should suffice. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 01:53, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NBOOK requires two book reviews, not a historical analysis. The review needs to be only an editorial review of contents, not of who owned it, what's the history etcetera. You're confusing GNG with NBOOK. For your benefit, NBOOK goes like this: "This can include published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, other books, television documentaries, bestseller lists, and reviews." Can you believe it, "bestseller lists"?! (The book is listed as amongst being most successful of all times in its category.)[11] I didn't make the guideline, but it works. Here's another book review from The Globe and Mail.[12] Lourdes 01:58, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is a reference work that was historically widely available in Canadian libraries, and is now available to libraries as an online subscription (making it hard to track current holdings). A cumulative index published in 1986 is still held by 131 libraries, not all in Canada and mostly major academic libraries, enough to make a reference book notable. For many years the work was published by the University of Toronto Press. References include an article written by a writer for a major Canadian newspaper (not a blog but an online copy of a 1998 newspaper column) as well as listings in books of Canadian reference sources for libraries. It has enough published sources combined with library holdings as a reference work to warrent an article, much as does the Marquis Who's Who article. Both publications use the same business model, which gives rise to the critical newspaper articles about them. StarryGrandma (talk) 02:17, 15 February 2019 (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.