Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joseph Harvey Ladew, Sr.

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. However, someone may address the thing with more references than actual prose... Tone 22:55, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph Harvey Ladew, Sr.[edit]

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

fails WP:BIO, 3 of the 6 references simply verify personal details and do not establish notability. simply having a yacht impounded by the Japanese comes under WP:ONEVENT. could not find substantial coverage on this subject [1], note some coverage is of his son. LibStar (talk) 23:40, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Another silly nomination of my work by LibStar as retaliation for working on articles he was trying to delete. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 23:42, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

see WP:NPA. this is also not a valid reason for keeping. see others below. LibStar (talk) 00:00, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The word "silly" is a personal attack? Your standards are low. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 02:45, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:KETTLE. LibStar (talk) 02:51, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I agree, WP:ONEVENT does not make this person notable. --Fbifriday (talk) 23:48, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And what event would that be? The article mentions multiple events. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 23:51, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Buying a Yacht, having the military seize property or donating property to the military (in this case, property meaning the Yacht), getting married, and having children, are not notable. Thousands of people have bought a yacht, thousands of people have had their property seized by the military, or have donated it in times of need, billions of people have gotten married, billions of people have had children. Therefore, the one event that could possibly be this person's claim to fame is his yacht being impounded by the Japanese, which of itself is unique, but not that notable. But, once again, if you say that is the notable thing, once again we turn to WP:ONEEVENT and must say that the one event is not enough to include in the encyclopedia. --Fbifriday (talk) 00:07, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Of course the difference is that all those things were reported over multiple years in reliable media, and other people aren't, when they donate a pair of socks to the military. And this person has an obituary in the New York Times where the first line of the obit is the claim of notability. Once notable always notable. Cheers. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 00:13, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And of course those events run from 1899 to 1940. The same argument could be used for a President of the United States or a Senator despite coverage for multiple years as a president, it is still one event, very silly argument in the case of Ladew. The proof is in the coverage by reliable media. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 00:51, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

the whole idea of AfDs is to ascertain notability through consensus of mulitple users. what you or I think is notable may not be the same for others. LibStar (talk) 00:15, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

like his birth and death and purchasing a yacht, none of which establishes notability. LibStar (talk) 00:00, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

delete - as it stands there's no reason to keep it. Being a yachtsman is about as notable as being a golfer. Getting in trouble with a foreign government when abroad happens to many of us, even today. JohnBlackburne (talk) 23:58, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unless you are the Tiger Woods of yachting in the years 1900-1913. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 00:14, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph Harvey Ladew, Sr. was not the Tiger Woods of yachting. LibStar (talk) 00:18, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There's nothing in the article to say he was the "Tiger Woods of yachting", i.e. that he was the best in the world. The bit of the obit quoted below just says he was "well known", not famous or renowned. That he could afford a big yacht is also not notable. As for the 'impounded by the Japanese', the June 15th ref suggests it never happened, but even if it did it's hardly enough for notability. JohnBlackburne (talk) 11:13, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Then who was the Tiger Woods of yachting in 1893 if it wasn't Ladew? Give a counter example please.

Strong keep very well referenced article, meeting all notability requirements. Ikip (talk) 03:00, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

6 of the 8 current references only verify personal details such as date of birth, marriage and children. such references do not show how he meets WP:BIO]. LibStar (talk) 03:03, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You haven't shown the converse, how it doesn't meet the Wikipedia notability guidelines. What rule has it violated in the Notability guideline? All you gave was a strawman fallacy as your argument. I am assuming good faith, I always do, but your research skills are either lacking or you deliberately feign ignorance of the basics of a Google search to sway the voting. I don't know which is true. Your only search was on "Joseph Harvey Ladew" with 12 results in GNews; you ignored "J. Harvey Ladew" with an additional 76 hits; and other variations of his name. You also ignored Google Books with "J. Harvey Ladew" giving 134 hits and "Joseph Harvey Ladew" an additional 9 hits. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 07:29, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

do not some of these hits refer to his son not the senior? secondly your statement is faked good faith by saying "your research skills are either lacking or you deliberately feign ignorance of the basics of a Google search to sway the voting", basically when you don't get agreement in an AfD you need to go into these accusations? it is bad faith in the extreme. LibStar (talk) 23:05, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Are you offering another strawman fallacy? An article only needs two good references to have the multiple references required by Wikipeida. And we can assume if one reference was another encyclopedia we would only need a one reference. -Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 08:44, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I always assume good faith, but one of two must be true. At each AFD you run a search then declare there is nothing worthwhile to be found in Google. I search and find good references and the article gets saved from deletion. So we have two choices. You honestly can't perform a decent Google search, or you feign an incompetent search to influence the vote. As I showed before, you can't run a single narrow search and declare victory or defeat such as "Joseph Harvey Ladew" in GNews and ignore "J. Harvey Ladew" and other variations as well as ignore GBooks. And in the bilateral articles you can't run a broad search that gives 10K results and just look at the first few pages of results and declare victory or defeat such as "Norway 'New Zealand'". --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 08:38, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:ONEEVENT says "When the role played by an individual in the event is less significant, an independent article may not be needed, and a redirect is appropriate." That seems to be the case here. ThaLux (talk) 07:34, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The reliable and verifiable sources in the article establish notability. Ladew's obituary in The New York Times runs 432 words and provides ample additional material to expand the article, along with further evidence of notability. It appears that User:LibStar is now stalking editors who have been involved in bilateral relations articles and attacking other articles those editors have written. This tiresome and abusive practice needs to be put to an end. Alansohn (talk) 13:39, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

if this is an accusation, it hardly is stalking. at most I have nominated 2 articles Norton has created in the last few months. LibStar (talk) 22:51, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The New York Times wouldn't run a long obituary if the person wasn't notable. Its original research to think otherwise. Dream Focus 17:59, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

and where is the significant coverage, besides NYT? or the criterion that if someone has an obituary in NYT they get an automatic WP article? LibStar (talk) 22:51, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would say in most cases yes. This would exclude paid obituaries. A NYT obit plus at least one other confirming source would show anyone notable by Wikipedia's own rules. Can you give examples where someone not notable is covered by the New York Times in a non-paid obituary? --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 23:04, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please show me the WP policy which says if someone has an obituary in NYT they get an automatic WP article. LibStar (talk) 14:05, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If there's something in the obit that establishes his notability please put it in the article. That there's a long obituary establishes nothing: it's the job of obit writers to fill pages day after day with facts about people you've mostly never heard of. JohnBlackburne (talk) 19:57, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia standard of notability is: "if a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article." By every objective measure this article meets that standard. His coverage runs from 1899 to 1940 so he is certainly not known for one single event. You argue: "it's the job of obit writers to fill pages day after day with facts about people you've mostly never heard of", and it is also the job of Wikipedia editors to do the same with notable people. Cheers. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 20:22, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would also look at WP:BIO which has a list of addditional critertia that makes "a person [...] generally notable". This article does not meet any of these criteria. Later it says the article should "explain the notability of its subject", which it does not. All the references are to articles behind paywalls, so I cannot see them to evaluate them or use them to expand the article. JohnBlackburne (talk) 21:28, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Only two references are behind a paywall, the 1940 NY Times, and the Los Angeles Times, all 9 other references are full text or full image, and free references. Maybe you are using a different Internet than I am. Is anyone else having the same problem as the above person? The text you referred us all to reads: "Should a person fail to meet these additional criteria, they may still be notable under Wikipedia:Notability." and of course Wikipedia:Notability reads: "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article." So I am a little confused as to what exactly your argument is. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 08:19, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies, I tried most of them, clicked on at least one which presented me with a 'please subscribe', then assumed I would see the same on the others as none of the links are direct. I should mention that in accordance with WP:EL links that link to PDFs should show they are links to PDFs, and direct links to the source are preferred, while sites requiring registration should be avoided.

But my main issue is I don't think he's notable - the "so-called seizure" in particular seems more a reporting mistake than a genuine event (the article is contradicted by the last source on it). Other than that he seems un-notable: he worked for the family business and owned a yacht. JohnBlackburne (talk) 14:49, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment there's more text in the references than the actual article. LibStar (talk) 23:05, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Clear claim of notability, article is extremely well sourced. More sources are available [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] Edward321 (talk) 01:04, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The two references from specialized encyclopedias show definitive notability for the purpose of inclusion per WP:5P and WP:NOTPAPER. The article is reliably sourced, and works to counter bias against notable business figures who are woefully underrepresented in WP. Due to the time period involved, online sources are going to be limited, but this is no reason to delete. Jim Miller ^{See me | Touch me} 14:13, 5 December 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.