Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Frank Ongley Darvall
- 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The result was keep, withdrawn with no dissenting opinions. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:15, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
Frank Ongley Darvall
- Frank Ongley Darvall (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Doesn't appear to meet WP:POLITICIAN or WP:BIO more generally. Subject was never successfully elected to the House of Commons, he never reached an ambassadorial-level diplomatic post, and I can't find any secondary sources besides the Who's Who link. Wieno (talk) 03:45, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
Withdrawn by Nominator because of the CBE. Good find Necrothesp. Wieno (talk) 22:03, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
- Keep: The subject passes WP:POLITICIAN#3 because "such people can still be notable if they meet the primary notability criterion of significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject of the article". This section is important as it recognises that subjects should not be assessed solely on their political career, which was often not their primary career. This is true of Darvall who also had notability outside of politics. Wieno admits to only locating one of the three secondary sources in the article, but nevertheless chose to nominate AfD which was an action that does not adhere to WP:BEFORE, by-passing WP:ATD. The other two sources would have been located had the nominator followed WP:BEFORE#D1:"The minimum search expected is a Google Books". I have just checked and can confirm that both of the other two sources can still be located in Google Books. Trying to assess if a subject has "significant coverage in reliable sources" can be difficult and very subjective. Fortunately in assessing UK subjects, life is a bit easier; I would argue that any UK subject who managed to force their way into the esteemed UK publication Who's Who has sufficient notability to make it into wikipedia. As the article confirms, Darvall has this notability. As the nominator describes themselves as a Canadian (a fine bunch of people) it is possible that they will not have heard of Who's Who and even if they had, may well have not been able to access http://www.ukwhoswho.com without a UK library card.Graemp (talk) 08:31, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
- I maintain my nomination. Your argument is essentially that while he doesn't meet WP:POLITICIAN he meets WP:GNG. From what I can tell there has not been significant coverage of him in reliable sources. Some books have cited his book as a source, but that is not the same thing. Nor is being mentioned in passing as a candidate in a book about the Liberal Party in that era. Wieno (talk) 16:12, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
- err..."Your argument is essentially that while he doesn't meet WP:POLITICIAN" ...just a second, I said "The subject passes WP:POLITICIAN#3"!!! It seems as if you have now managed to locate the secondary sources you failed to locate in your introduction, which is very good news. However, you say "From what I can tell, there has not been significant coverage..." Your initial inability to track identified sources in the article undermines any sentence you chose to start in such a way. It pleases me that you are not questioning my Who's Who point about notability. For anyone without a UK Library card, who has never seen Who's Who, I can confirm that the detail they contain on most individuals is sufficient for a primary source in any article and although there may be other sources, they will often duplicate content, which is why I did not bother to include them. Finally I would have thought that a student, even a Canadian Student such as Wieno, would have been quick to acknowledge any individuals notability if they had served as their country's National Student President as Darvall did. Graemp (talk) 17:04, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
- Yes, "such people can still be notable if they meet the primary notability criterion," means that people who do not meet the specific guideline for politicians are not precluded from meeting the general notability guideline. You appear to be arguing that the subject meets the GNG, which is referenced by the politician guideline but is not part of the guideline. A subject who is notable because of GNG does not automatically meet the politician guideline, they just have a different route to notability. As to Who's Who, I am not disputing that it is a reliable source, or that it contains sufficient information to ground the article in. But the notability guideline is not about ensuring there are sufficient sources to create a reliable article (though that certainly plays a role), it is about using reliable secondary sources as a proxy to determine whether the topic of an article is 'worthy of notice'. If a topic has had significant coverage in reliable, independent sources, then it is presumed that a topic notable enough to receive such coverage is notable enough for Wikipedia. So far I've found one reliable source (Who's Who) that provides significant coverage of the subject, a few books that provide a passing reference to the subject when discussing the Liberal Party, and one short article from a local paper mentioning that he's moving from Utah to a posting in Washington. Other than that, his name only comes up in Google Books where one of his works are being cited in another book. As to being NUS President, I personally don't believe that independently provides notability (especially at such an earlier phase of the NUS's development). If being the head of the NUS at that time was notable, then presumably there would be enough coverage of him through that role that he'd meet the GNG anyway. Wieno (talk) 18:05, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
- You state "As to being NUS President, I personally don't believe that independently provides notability (especially at such an earlier phase of the NUS's development)." As I mentioned above, one should not assess someone's notability on any particular aspect of their life but on their life as a whole, therefore we should not be assessing Darvall's notability as NUS President independently. WP:POLITICIAN clearly recognises this point. You also seem to be arguing that because Darvall was the 7th NUS President he is going to be less notable than those who followed him. I don't understand that logic. Few would argue that Alexander Mackenzie has less notability because he became Prime Minister of Canada only 6 years after the position was created. There is another relevant issue that needs to be addressed, and that is the evolving nature of the internet. Day by day, more and more historical information is being added and also being presented in a more accessible way. I created the article on Darvall last October, and even in the short space of time since then, I have been able to access more relevant information on him which given time could be added to his article. Before Who's Who went fully on-line a couple of years ago, I could have still created this wikipedia article from hardback editions but I would have no doubt faced comments from others pointing out that the source I provided could not be verified on-line. However, we are where we are and regardless of any other information that exists, we have an on-line verifiable independent and authorative Internationally recognised source that determined he had sufficient notability to be included during his lifetime. Graemp (talk) 19:12, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
- Yes, "such people can still be notable if they meet the primary notability criterion," means that people who do not meet the specific guideline for politicians are not precluded from meeting the general notability guideline. You appear to be arguing that the subject meets the GNG, which is referenced by the politician guideline but is not part of the guideline. A subject who is notable because of GNG does not automatically meet the politician guideline, they just have a different route to notability. As to Who's Who, I am not disputing that it is a reliable source, or that it contains sufficient information to ground the article in. But the notability guideline is not about ensuring there are sufficient sources to create a reliable article (though that certainly plays a role), it is about using reliable secondary sources as a proxy to determine whether the topic of an article is 'worthy of notice'. If a topic has had significant coverage in reliable, independent sources, then it is presumed that a topic notable enough to receive such coverage is notable enough for Wikipedia. So far I've found one reliable source (Who's Who) that provides significant coverage of the subject, a few books that provide a passing reference to the subject when discussing the Liberal Party, and one short article from a local paper mentioning that he's moving from Utah to a posting in Washington. Other than that, his name only comes up in Google Books where one of his works are being cited in another book. As to being NUS President, I personally don't believe that independently provides notability (especially at such an earlier phase of the NUS's development). If being the head of the NUS at that time was notable, then presumably there would be enough coverage of him through that role that he'd meet the GNG anyway. Wieno (talk) 18:05, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
- err..."Your argument is essentially that while he doesn't meet WP:POLITICIAN" ...just a second, I said "The subject passes WP:POLITICIAN#3"!!! It seems as if you have now managed to locate the secondary sources you failed to locate in your introduction, which is very good news. However, you say "From what I can tell, there has not been significant coverage..." Your initial inability to track identified sources in the article undermines any sentence you chose to start in such a way. It pleases me that you are not questioning my Who's Who point about notability. For anyone without a UK Library card, who has never seen Who's Who, I can confirm that the detail they contain on most individuals is sufficient for a primary source in any article and although there may be other sources, they will often duplicate content, which is why I did not bother to include them. Finally I would have thought that a student, even a Canadian Student such as Wieno, would have been quick to acknowledge any individuals notability if they had served as their country's National Student President as Darvall did. Graemp (talk) 17:04, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
- I maintain my nomination. Your argument is essentially that while he doesn't meet WP:POLITICIAN he meets WP:GNG. From what I can tell there has not been significant coverage of him in reliable sources. Some books have cited his book as a source, but that is not the same thing. Nor is being mentioned in passing as a candidate in a book about the Liberal Party in that era. Wieno (talk) 16:12, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
- Keep - passes WP:POLITICIAN but as an author too. I should declare that I came here having seen it above a message I left regarding an inappropriate CSD for another article. After seeing this also perhaps User Wieno you should re read GNG and other related criteria. You probably also should not tag with a speedy for deletion any sourced article. Best regards all the same. In ictu oculi (talk) 12:08, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:01, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:01, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:01, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:01, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:01, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
- Keep. Awarded the CBE in 1954, which has always been held to meet criterion #1 of WP:ANYBIO. -- Necrothesp (talk) 19:33, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
- Keep. CBE just scrapes through. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:48, 5 February 2014 (UTC).
- 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.