Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/James Baar

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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. WP:NPASR. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:34, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

James Baar[edit]

James Baar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Recreation of a previously prod-deleted article. Author with a few published books. The article asserts that the subject is mentioned in Marquis Who's Who, yet Google returns little in terms of reliable sources aside from that. Weak delete.  Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 14:58, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not notable enough for inclusion. Coverage is pretty low usually consisting of him being mentioned. Christopher Connor (talk) 09:36, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Someone improperly filed an AFD on another article. I have removed it. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 01:29, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cirt (talk) 13:27, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

RELIABLE SOURCES and ADDITIONAL ITEMS IN SUPPORT OF NOTABILITY

- Providence Journal [1]. Certainly someone reliably characterized as a "Golden-age power player" deserves inclusion. As to notability, "The common theme in the notability guidelines is that there must be verifiable objective evidence that the subject has received significant attention to support a claim of notability." The very nature of the Providence Journal article is that Mr. Baar is notable and that his commentary about the Golden Age of Advertising important.

- NASA: See the notes under "Stages to Saturn" http://history.nasa.gov/SP-4206/sp4206.htm [2]. NASA references his book "Polaris" variously. See notes Chapter 1 #s 11, 13 and Chapter 9 #52. Apparently, NASA considers Baar work as significant enough and credible enough to variously rely on his views when compiling the organizations own autobiographical history.

- Note reference to a "Memo from the Publisher: James Baar, our editor of military affairs...", Missiles and Rockets Magazine, Washinton, DC, August 1961.

- Note: In 1980 his book "The Great Free Enterprise Gambit" was reviewed by The New York Times, Publishers Weekly, UPI, Forbes, Seattle Times Magazine, and Kirkus Reviews. (Specific dates and page references are not readily available but can be gotten via the library.)

- Baar is featured in Who's Who in Finance and Industry, Who's Who in the East, AND Who's Who in Public Relations.

- Contrary to an earlier debate re: O'Dwyer's Directories, these lists are vetted by O'Dwyer news staffers. Baar is referenced variously among the top PR agency executives there.

- Baar's professional memberships have required specific professional qualifications. His memberships have included the White House Correspondents Association, National Press Club (Washington), Association of US Aerospace Industry Representatives-Europe (Paris), Overseas Press Club, National Investor Relations Institute (president, Philadelphia Chapter).

- Note: Reader's Digest. 40th anniversary issue, Feb. 1962, "Big Search for a Defense against Missiles" by James Baar and William E. Howard, p. 127

- Note: New York Herald Tribune, April 18, 1965, p. 23, reports that a copy of "Polaris!" was sent to President Johnson by the head of US Civil Service as part of the recommendation to appoint Vice Adm William F. Raborn, former head of the Polaris development program, Director of the CIA.

Bdconnolly (talk) 14:34, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Here's my take on the arguments above. These comments are written for the benefit of Bdconolly:
    • The Providence Journal reference does of course qualify as reliable and non-trivial. The previous close as delete was done on the grounds that this was the only such reference anyone had found by the time of the closing.
    • The NASA notes do mention Baar's Polaris as a "see also." This shows that Baar's work is to be considered reliable as a reference in articles about the subject of his book, but by itself I'm wondering if it's just a nudge when it comes to establishing Baar's notability.
    • The Missiles and Rockets Magazine memo is not the kind of evidence of notability we are looking for, as it constitutes, for this purpose, a primary source.
    • Marquis Who's Who has selection criteria that are different than ours, based on the quality and credibility of the subject's achievements (they always refused to include Monica Lewinsky, for example) rather than pre-established notoriety. It fits our definition of a secondary source, however much of the material about the lesser-known subjects is autobiographical, and some people have questioned the selection process (see for example this).
    • Here is O'Dwyer's website. I don't know what to make of it, but a Google News search shows that firm's publications to be rather obscure.
    • Baar's professional memberships have nothing to do with his notability, regardless of the qualifications necessary to obtain them.
    • Having one article published in Reader's Digest is not enough by itself to convey notability. Being the subject of significant coverage (see WP:GNG) is not the same as being the author of significant coverage.
    • Now the news item about a copy of Polaris sent to the president is the kind of significant coverage we are looking for, provided that the articles mentioned be about the book or its author, or at least that the mention of the book and/or its author constitute a significant part of the article, and the article is not the kind that's a two-liner hidden on a page otherwise full of ads. The articles (or any other significant coverage, for that matter) do not need to be available online (and no one could reasonably expect an article that old to be available online), but they do need to address Baar significantly, not just in passing.
  • So, to establish notability, we have coverage in the Providence Journal that is unquestionably valid (that's a "yes"), we have a "maybe" with the Herald-Tribune coverage and the NASA references, and a "maybe but probably not" with Who's Who and O'Dwyer's. And perhaps what other editors might be able to come up with. -- Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 22:13, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry, I completely forgot about the book criticism in the New York Times. At first glance that sounds better than all other arguments except the one about the Providence Journal. Call that a "maybe, leaning towards yes." -- Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 22:26, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NativeForeigner Talk/Contribs 00:56, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep. - Bad layout but seems to be over the notability bar. I wish as much effort that has gone into this debate would go into improving the article. Carrite (talk) 03:54, 7 August 2010 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/James_Baar&oldid=1072140615"