Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dentler Erdmann

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. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 01:18, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dentler Erdmann[edit]

I can't find any reliable sources that show notability. Fails WP:BIO. Schuym1 (talk) 12:58, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, being a high school teacher is not enough. Punkmorten (talk) 16:08, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:11, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete. The main, and real, claim to notability is that he was the 1975 California Teacher of the Year. This fact is confirmed by the reliable source already given in the article[1]. A googlenews search also quickly yields this 1974 article in Los Angeles Times about Erdmann receiving the award.[2]. However, I was not able to find any significant coverage beyond that and no other newscoverage. While the award is reasonably significant (especially given the size of California, both in terms of population and area, which makes it bigger than many countries), I don't think it is sufficiently significant to justify having a stand-alone article about Erdmann, especially in the absence of wider coverage. Based on the coverage available appears to fall short of passing WP:BIO. Perhaps the thing to do here is to create an article about the California Teacher of the Year award and redirect this entry there. Nsk92 (talk) 17:47, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per Nsk92. I like the idea about a general article and redirecting this one to that. --Crusio (talk) 18:50, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Very Strong Keep. The award is undeniably notable. The problem is not there is no verifiable third-party sourcing, but that the verification is not accessible by Google. Thirty-plus-year-old newspaper stories are not generally archived by Google. Or indexed. I was at one of these award ceremonies in my home state several years ago (the teacher was from my home town). All 5 TV stations came and covered it on their evening news. Every major newspaper in the state covered it. The teacher appeared on local TV news/interview programs for several years. Many news articles on her activities, often quoted on her opinions. These award winners meet all the Wikipedia requirements for notability, they're just not celebrities. They're honored by the US President/White House with a ceremony every year. I am struck by the comparison to this AFD which I was just on the wrong side of. [3] The award is given by a much more notable organization, the distinction is more significant (class of about 50 vs class of at least 500, and the "talent pool" is much larger), and the verifiable third-party coverage is much greater. There's no reason to delete this. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 21:00, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, but the claims made in this article don't provide enough notability, verifiable or not. Delete. Little Red Riding Hoodtalk 21:48, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - WP:N says that receiving a notable honor makes the subject notable. Your complaint is with the policy, not with my position. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 18:29, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep National level awards for teaching are notable. State awards are less obvious. It is perfectly reasonable, though, for use to use awards as a standard. I'd like to see some sourcing for the actual notability of the award. I don't think its reasonable to compare porn actor notability to teachers, or equate awards across different fields. DGG (talk) 01:17, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, if the award is really the only claim to notability (and it appears that this is so), then perhaps we should consider WP:BLP1E. This appears to be another article where there isn't really a basis for an article -- it's hard to see how it could be expanded by what is already here. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 18:51, 6 January 2009 (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.