Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Edgar Hager

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 defaulting to Keep and w/o prejudice to a possible future renomination. Ad Orientem (talk) 01:47, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Edgar Hager[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)

Small town mayor, fails WP:POLITICIAN. Has only two reliable sources, one is a book about the history of the town. Rusf10 (talk) 14:42, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 14:44, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kentucky-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 14:44, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. Hager has a large entry in the Kentucky history book, the source not highlighted in the nomination. References can always be improved. gidonb (talk) 16:09, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There needs to be multiple sources. What other sources are out there? WP:MUSTBESOURCES--Rusf10 (talk) 16:14, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

When I say references can be improved this is cause I have seen the sources. Now included is an article from a Ohio newspaper. gidonb (talk) 02:37, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In other words, references do not equal sources. Holding both equal is also the problem at the root of your excessive AfDs. gidonb (talk) 14:17, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

See more detail in my comment below. gidonb (talk) 04:11, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, without prejudice against recreation in the future if somebody can do much better. Having a "large" entry in the Kentucky history book is certainly a potential start down the road toward making him more notable than most other smalltown mayors — but the link is just to a directory page for the book on Google Books, not to an actual copy of the book by which anybody can see how large his entry really is or isn't, so it isn't a magic bullet all by itself as the article's only notability-assisting source. And of the other five sources here, three are primary sources that do not bolster notability at all, one is a self-published family genealogy, and the last is an incomplete citation to a local history book which is also impossible to verify whether its content about him is substantive or not — but since that source is being cited only to support the base fact that he was a mayor, and not for any substantive content about his mayoralty, I suspect that it isn't very substantive at all. A smalltown mayor's article needs to be much better referenced than this to actually get him over WP:NPOL #2. Bearcat (talk) 17:16, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Bearcat: I relinked the Kentucky history article. It can also be read through the external link. I have added a newspaper source from Ohio. gidonb (talk) 18:17, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Above opinion summarizes a historic in-article situation of our entry, before recent improvements. gidonb (talk) 02:17, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete we typically don't keep small town mayors per WP:NPOL. Sources are scarce, and there's nothing showing he was any more or less notable than any other mayor of 20,000 people. SportingFlyer talk 18:38, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
For the historical record, about 30k. gidonb (talk) 19:10, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Above opinion summarizes a historic in-article situation of our entry, before recent improvements. gidonb (talk) 02:17, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep So obviously notable. WP:HEY there are probably even more sources if it were easier to query sources that aren't online.Bangabandhu (talk) 00:33, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment how is the notability "obvious"? SportingFlyer talk 05:00, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Bangabandhu: I think this question is for you! gidonb (talk) 03:53, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously?! It says that an impartial, authoritative source has labeled him "one of the most accomplished and cultured men ever to grace the Kentucky bar." Unfortunately he was active long before the internet, but we shouldn't handicapped him for that. This article should be expanded to include as much as we can about this remarkable lawyer. He so clearly not a run of the mill local politician. Bangabandhu (talk) 15:22, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. There are 72 hits of Edgard B Hager in the Chronicling America database. If 12 are false positives and 10 are ads, then we're talking about 50 news items. Of course not all press coverage was scanned. Along with the entry in the statewide history book, this bio meets WP:BASIC and can be withdrawn. gidonb (talk) 04:05, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

local newspapers always write about local politicians, this doesn't help establish notability.--Rusf10 (talk) 04:58, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WP has no rules against regional press. Hager received abundant press coverage across Kentucky as well as from Ohio. Plus a large biographic entry in a statewide history book. This nomination is without merit. gidonb (talk) 02:02, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Really, a newspaper far away in Ohio covered him? Oh wait, let's look at a map! Ashland borders Ohio so that's local press. As myself and other have said many times, every single politician everywhere gets local newspaper coverage. So if we set the bar so low that anyone with a local newspaper article is notable, every single town councilman would have a wikipedia article. Besides those newspaper articles all you have one statewide history book. If he's so notable, why hasn't anyone bothered to write about him since then? (besides a very brief mention in a book from 1957). Claiming that the nomination is without merit is beyond absurd.--Rusf10 (talk) 03:32, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely nothing in the press coverage is local. Zero. Just in the article there are 15 press references and none of these are from Ashland, Kentucky or adjacent communities. Coverage is from the region at the nearest and far and wide across Kentucky, including the state capitol, in other cases, plus Cincinnati and other places in Ohio. Now it is untrue that local coverage is unimportant so even answering your newest wrong claim is problematic. If about every newspaper of the era across Kentucky and somewhat beyond wrote about Hager then of course he was covered also by his local press. These would be very valid references. We just do not have them because Ashland newspapers were not scanned by the scanning projects. Therefore none of the coverage is local. All of it is regional, state level, or next state. Plus it doesn't matter either. It's just another nothing burger in a nomination without merit. As I said in my comment, and this continues to stand very solid, the article meets WP:BASIC. gidonb (talk) 12:01, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete We follow the trends of current scholarship, not odd assetions in over 100 year old books. Unless someone can show that this over 100 year old assertion about the special nature of Hager has caused him to be mentioned again in more recent books on Kentucky, I say it is not really a source worth following up on.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:59, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - "one of the most accomplished and cultured men ever to grace the Kentucky bar" is ridiculously NPOV and should not be in the lede. But otherwise, The article passes V and NOR. As a mayor and noted orator, this individual seems to me to be encyclopedic and not to fail NOT. Smmurphy^(Talk) 14:48, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I made some updates to the page earlier today using articles from newspapers.com for references (check out WP:TWL for free accounts if you are interested). The two articles that were most in depth about Hager were, I think, campaign profiles from 1906 and 1910: [1] and [2]. I added a half a dozen or so total clippings. Smmurphy^(Talk) 04:02, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I know we disagree on this, but if those were the most in depth articles, I don't see how this small town mayor would possibly satisfy WP:NPOL. NPOL says: "A politician who has received "significant press coverage" has been written about, in depth, independently in multiple news feature articles, by journalists." These are run-of-the-mill someone runs for office articles. SportingFlyer talk 13:46, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your question. I tried a few times to write a response, but couldn't get one that was complete, short, and remained on topic to this discussion. I'm happy to chat more in-depth on my talk page, but here is an incomplete answer: My interpretation of GNG/42 is that it is almost too easy to meet - two in-depth independent sources can be very easy to find. My interpretation of SNGs is that they are meant to ensure we cover, at a minimum, everything we are expected to cover. An article like this is covered by an SNG only because it is covered by GNG; an encyclopedia wouldn't be expected to cover every mayor, even one who was a lawyer, was a good speaker, and had a well-connected family (I think those are the main reasons he was included in the local history book). So to answer your question, I do think short, routine profiles like those you linked are enough to satisfy GNG, but the more important consideration is whether or not this individual is suitable for an encyclopedia article. GNG tries to help deal with the subjective nature of this consideration, but most of the onus is on editors. In this case we have a bio in a local history book and independent attestation of the reasons he was included in the book. Smmurphy^(Talk) 15:41, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: More analysis of the nature of the sources would be helpful: comments asserting obvious notability are less helpful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanamonde (talk) 05:09, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A mayor is not automatically notable, but can be notable under WP:GNG. An article in a legitimate biographical directory and the abundant newspaper coverage may be enough to demonstrate notability. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 06:41, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
delete Typical local coverage of a small city mayor who tried and failed to gain a federal office. I don't know why we have to waste so much time on these guys when the guidelines and precedents are all but uniformly against these articles. Mangoe (talk) 12:38, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Mangoe: maybe you want to reconsider because there is no local press coverage in the article. It's not true that such references would be invalid for notability, these just haven't been scanned. All press coverage is regional or across the state plus from Ohio. And then there is a biographic entry in a history book. Your rationale does not allude to the most central reference of our fine entry. Have you seen it or missed it? In any case our guidelines and precedents clearly support having such entrees as Edgar Hager in case of sufficient valid sources. Specifically WP:NPOL and WP:POLOUTCOMES. gidonb (talk) 13:26, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This AfD is listed already a while but all this time no case has been made for deletion. Already at listing time there were "two reliable sources" in the article as nominator said. This was enough for WP:GNG. Since then this number has grown to about 20. For sure there were a few deletion regulars who said their regular delete but their arguments distort and conflict with our policies, guidelines and precedents, and with the situation of the article. With 2 then, 20 now reliable sources in the article, this nomination is a waste of valuable community time from the onset and should never have happened. Wikipedia has a major problem of WP:RECENTISM and WP:BLP so when we have fine historic articles, shedding light on eras in American history, we can cherish these as a community. gidonb (talk) 12:59, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think at this point user:Gidonb has made more comments than everyone else here combined. This must be among the most WP:BLUDGEONed discussions ever.--Rusf10 (talk) 17:43, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You must not spend a lot of time at AfD or RfC if you think this is one of the most bludgeoned discussions ever, but yes, I agree in principle: Gidonb's comments are getting excessive and have crossed a line where they are so numerous and pervasive (and so dismissive of countervailing views, in a begging the question manner) that I would say they are at least verging on disruptive. Gidonb I know it can be difficult to refrain from responding to arguments one strongly disagrees with, but most of your comments now are reiterating perspectives which you have already asserted. Please allow the discussion and its participants room to breath. This looks likely to be resolved as a no-consensus discussion, in which case the article will survive, for a time at least. Aggressively litigating every point with every respondent who has a differing !vote is more likely to harm the perceived strength of your arguments with experienced editors than to augment it. Snow ^{let's rap} 01:04, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Snow Rise: Since you pinged me. I welcome all comments, also those critical of me, and always am happy with suggestions for improvement. I have invested a lot of effort in the improvement this article. gidonb (talk) 01:13, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. :) Yes, I can see that you have, and I think it is likely to be retained for the present time. Personally, and meaning no offense to your clearly good-faith efforts, I kind of lean towards deletion on this one myself, based on what I am seeing here. But I have not had time to review the sources in fine detail (and may not have the opportunity before the discussion is closed) so I do not feel comfortable lodging an !vote either way. But I will share my perspective on what concerns me here, from a notability standpoint, so that maybe it will be of benefit to you in making a case to retain the article and improving it thereafter.

In a word, my concerns regard "context"; encyclopedic context is a requirement for an article that often gets raised via WP:CSD, but for whatever reason usually gets short-shrift (or is expressed in other terms) here at AfD. There's a lot of nuanced discussion above about whether this article meets particular provisions of GNG or the relevant SNG (I think it's clearly a borderline case for either) but establishing WP:notability as we describe the concept in those policies is just the first step in deciding whether an independent biographical article is appropriate for a given individual, including a long-dead figure of local import. If all we have is a pastiche of various page clippings noting that the subject once went to France with the YMCA in some unspecified capacity, that he was said to be a skilled orator (a pretty bog standard thing to say when you want to praise a lawyer), that he was once appointed a special judge, that he made unsuccessful runs at congress, and so-on and so-forth, then we aren't really making a great case for why this individual is important as an encylopedic matter--whether we view him as a topic of local importance or more broadly significant.

That can all be framed in terms of notability as well as other policies, but what it comes down to is that the biography seems more like an aggregation of random facts, none of which are particularly notable in themselves, and it lacks a cohesive narrative to demonstrate why these pieces add up to more than the sum of their parts and that the subject is therefore worthy of inclusion in a general interest encyclopedia as a consequence. Now, the one thing that gives me pause here (and forestalls me from !voting delete without doing a fair deal of independent research on the matter) is the quote from the 1912 book which described the subject as "one of the most accomplished and cultured men ever to grace the Kentucky bar." Even though we are talking about a source that is more than a hundred years old, which may not be very reliable as we judge such sources in itself, and concerns a fairly non-populous state, that's still quite the statement to make. It makes me feel like there may be more context regarding this man's life which could added to the article which to seal the deal on both notability and context. What else does that source say? What did it consider his signature accomplishments? I'd be curious to know, and I think that is where you might start in buttressing the article if it survives this AfD, in order to avoid another one down the line.

But regardless of the content issues, I'd advise (if you're game for unsolicited advice) restraint in how often you reply to others in consensus discussions--particularly those with numerous parties. I say this as someone who has to fight the same instinct; I tend to want to discuss analytical matters in an organized and exhaustive fashion. I'm usually very dispassionate about it, but it does on rare occasion drive me bonkers when I see that local consensus is driving in a direction that is inconsistent with general community consensus. The impulse to try to engage with each individual to reach a principled conclusion on each point is strong, but over my time on this project I have had to adjust my approach somewhat, as this can become a counter-productive approach. Even if one is right on each individual point, the overall social psychology involved in the nature of human debate (and the optics incurred for those who arrive later) often make it a losing strategy in the particular medium of Wikipedia's consensus discussions, however well argued one's points and however much they have the facts, sourcing, and policy on their side. I say this, of course, at the end of a ginormo post, so you can take my thoughts with a grain of salt if you prefer, but I do think both the content and the meta-discussion points I am raising here are worth considering. :) Best of luck! Snow ^{let's rap} 02:08, 1 July 2018 (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.