Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Leon Daniel

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The result was withdrawn. Nominator withdraws. (non-admin closure) Niteshift36 (talk) 01:59, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Leon Daniel[edit]

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

Subject was an editor with UPI. I can find articles written by him or mentioning that he was somewhere, but no significant third party coverage of him as a person. The most extensive coverage was his 4 paragraph obituary. Overall, it appears that he fails WP:CREATIVE. Niteshift36 (talk) 23:57, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 17:23, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The coverage from "The Namibian" is simply a collection of quotes from obituaries. Obituaries, regardless of how many of them you dig out, don't add up to notability. The book mentions you list are just mentions. They aren't coverage of him. As I stated in the nom, there is a lack of significant coverage by reliable, third party sources. Niteshift36 (talk) 15:38, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I realize it would be ideal to have an entire biography on him, but I think when several independent sources confirm and provide some details about his work, I feel this is sufficient notability. There are additional book references as well--
So, I completely agree that any one of these sources does not provide what I would call "ideal" coverage. But taken together, Daniel appears to have a significant role as a reporter in Asia during wartime, as well as civil rights movements in the US. His position and work at UPI is consistently mentioned in every source, and his reports are quoted in multiple sources. I continue to think this is sure keep. I, Jethrobot drop me a line 17:32, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I've gone ahead and added additional sources to the article, which I believe bring this well past the coverage requirements for WP:GNG. He appears to be well known for his body of work during the Vietnam war, as well as later coverage in other regions of Asia as well including coverage of the Thai military. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 16:34, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • He doesn't pass GNG. Simply cobbling together minor mentions to come up with some information is not passing GNG. GNG says significant coverage in reliable sources. None of these are significant, lets alone there being multiple ones. This is a collection of mentions and obituaries. I'm sure he was a fine reporter, but that doesn't make him notable. Look at these things: footnotes, a desciption of him, saying he reported from a place. Aside from the obituaries, you can't show anything that actually devotes 2 paragraphs to him. Wouldn't an actually notable person usually get a couple of paragraphs sometime before he died? Niteshift36 (talk) 18:12, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Are you serious? You consider using his name twice in 4 pages to be "significant"? The fact that something that thin is being offered as coverage tends to prove the lack of significant coverage.Niteshift36 (talk) 19:34, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am serious, and I think we're just going to have to agree to disagree because it doesn't appear to matter how many sources I find for you. I think the fact that he and his work is discussed briefly in multiple, independent sources is substantially better than significant coverage in a single source. That's all I have to say. I, Jethrobot drop me a line 19:41, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's not about number of sources, it never was. It has always been about the significant coverage. 2 sources that cover him in depth are better than 20 sources that merely mention him. Niteshift36 (talk) 00:03, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why this repeated asserton that obituaries can't be used as sources? What policy or guideline says that? If an obituary is independently written and appears in a reliable publication then it is one of the best types of source for us to use, as it gives an overview of the subject's life rather than just news-style information about particular incidents, and also confirms that the outside world considers the subject to be notable, which is what counts for Wikipedia rather than whether we consider him so. You (Niteshift36) seem to be confusing editorial obituaries with paid-for death notices. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:58, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Phil, where did I say they can't be used as sources? I never did, so I'll thank you to not put words in my mouth again. What I said was that they shouldn't be viewed as significant coverage. When people die, other people feel the need to write about the good parts of their life. Fine. That isn't coverage, it is a rememberence. The man had a long career and did some cool things, but that doesn't grant notability. I think GNG is too lenient and I don't even think he makes GNG because a glowing obituary is hardly going to be neutral or actually that significant. Niteshift36 (talk) 19:31, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Your demand for sources "aside from the obituaries" certainly looked to me as a dismissal of obituaries as reliable sources, but I apologise if I misinterpreted that. Newspapers such as The Washington Post and The New York Times only feel the need to write about notable people's lives when they die. Such obituaries do not in general only write about the good parts of their subjects' lives, and there is no reason to doubt their neutrality any more than there is for any other articles in those publications. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:27, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Phil, I didn't say that obituaries can't be sources. If you can find where I said that, provide the diff. Nor should it have looked like I said that if you read what I actually wrote. I said that obituaries do not constitute significant coverage if that is all there is. Noting someone's passing doesn't make them notable. There is the occasional person who becomes notable after their death, but generally, if they weren't notable before their death, just observing their passing shouldn't make them notable. Niteshift36 (talk) 00:03, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Using multiple sources to demonstrate notability bu cumulative impact is legitimate. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 19:42, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • 18 sources that all say pretty much the same thing; that when all put together still only amounts to a paragraph worth of info. Look at what they say: that he was a reporter, he was in X places doing his job and then he died. Niteshift36 (talk) 19:58, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, they can't all be Kardashians. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 20:46, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - While, in my opinion, the numerous high quality sources that produced independent obits for him are more than enough for GNG, there is also plenty of other significant coverage. For instance, there were several full articles written about his expulsion from Thailand which are referenced in the article including: [1] and [2] and [3] and [4]. Additionally he was clearly viewed as an expert on happening during the Vietnam war as evidenced by reporting on him such as [5] and the article in the LA Times entitled, "Viet Cong Take Over Presidential Palace as Troops, Tanks Pour In", Los Angeles Times, April 30, 1975 (sorry it is offline only). These are just a few examples, which on top of the already significant obits clearly demonstrate notability at the GNG level. I note that the nom opposes GNG criteria, but that is not an issue to be discussed/decided in an AfD. That is a policy discussion which would require a change of the GNG criteria, and is outside the scope of an AfD discussion. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 21:10, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I appreciate the attempt to locate better sources. The Thai incident is close to me, but not that convincing. The Dispatch article you cite is another mention. And no, I don't necessarily "oppose GNG criteria". I think it is too lax. But I still don't think this man actually meets the lax standard that we currently have and THAT is what I am discssing here. So don't try to cloud the issue. Clearly, some of you think that "significant" means any mention at all. I, and at least one other editor, don't agree that every mention is significant. Niteshift36 (talk) 00:09, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I do not see anybody suggesting that every mention is significant. I do see several arguments that there is significant coverage of this person though, and I see that you disagree with those assessments. If you do not view the obits in the NY Times and Washington Post as significant, and do not view the full articles about his expulsion from Thailand as significant coverage, could you give an example of any article on any person that you view as significant coverage so we can understand the criteria you are hoping to apply? ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 01:43, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, I won't dignify your sarcastic request to show you what significant coverage is. Niteshift36 (talk) 01:52, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment So, let's assume that the current articles following Daniel's death are not substantial enough (I don't really agree with this because the books and articles do more than just mention his name). This article surely provides substantial biographical information about Daniel. It goes above and beyond any of the other articles created about him after his death (i.e. Washington Post, NY Times, Chicago Tribune, and in the LA Times). The article is an obituary written by a partner of Daniel that was in UPI (Lewis Lord), but it is published in a source that is independent of the subject.
Also, I'm going to clean up the article so that a single sentence doesn't have, like, 50 refs after it, and the sources actually provide unique content about Daniel. I, Jethrobot drop me a line 01:40, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Withdrawn. Since it is clear that the inclusionist tendencies have led to the word significant being diluted, I'm withdrawing the nom. Niteshift36 (talk) 01:59, 17 July 2011 (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/Leon_Daniel&oldid=1070845168"