Talk:Who's Who in Nebraska

Speedy Removal Notice DISPUTED
This is obviously a misunderstanding of the nature of this type of entry.

Here is What This Entry is NOT

 * It is NOT about a real person
 * It is NOT about an individual animal
 * It is NOT about an organization
 * It is NOT about web content that does not credibly give the significance.

Here is What This Entry IS
This page is a summary of a biographical publication so that people will know what the publication was about and how it was created. For a list of other wikipedia pages that function in exactly the same way please consult the Biographical_dictionaries category. For example:
 * Watkins_Biographical_Dictionary
 * Dictionary_of_Virginia_Biography

I should mention that the "Nebraska Press Association" is made up of newspaper companies and journalists in Nebraska. In 1940 they solicited biographical sketches from various sources and then edited and published a "Who's Who" book. THIS IS NOT ABOUT THE NEBRASKA PRESS ASSOCIATION -- IT WAS JUST PUBLISHED BY THEM. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Drmissio (talk • contribs) 02:23, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

You may want to mark this as a "Stub" -- but please do not delete this reference to a historical biographical dictionary.

Also, please, next time actually read the article and click on the links. If one had done so, it would be obvious that the entry DOES NOT MEET THE SPEEDY DELETION GUIDELINES.

Thanks. 02:08, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi! Sorry to not get back to you for so long -- I had to take a mini Wikibreak. Now that I look back upon this, I realized that listing this per a7 was not exactly right, and it does not fall into any of the typical categories. However, this article still does not have any claim to significance or notability, unlike the other two examples that you provided. The WP:Notability (books) guideline states that "The book has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works whose sources are independent of the book itself, with at least some of these works serving a general audience. This includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, other books, television documentaries and reviews. Some of these works should contain sufficient critical commentary to allow the article to grow past a simple plot summary." A quick search turned up no reliable sources other than the two which you gave, which can be considered not to be "independent." If you can address the concern for notability, then great! Otherwise, there is a chance that I or someone else will take this to WP:AfD where a week long debate for deletion would take place. If you have any more questions, do not hesitate to ask. I should be able to get you a response in about 24 hrs. Fiftytwo thirty (talk) 02:28, 13 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Hmmm. If you do a search on "Who's Who in Nebraska" in Google Books, you will find 144 listings. While some of these are for the 1976-1977 edition, many of these are either generically siting Who's Who in Nebraska or specifically the 1940 edition. No reliable sources? How about:


 * Representative Nebraskans By John Reuben Johnson
 * American legislative leaders in the Midwest, 1911-1994‎ - Page 195
 * Nebraska ancestree, Volumes 7-9‎ - Page 74
 * Nebraska blue book‎ - Page 225 (put out by the Nebraska Legislature)
 * A Biographical dictionary of the phonetic sciences, pg 172
 * Two thousand notable Americans‎ - Page 477
 * Who's who in finance and industry, Volume 24‎ - Page 57
 * Who's Who in the Midwest, 1986-1987‎ - Page 73
 * Proceedings of the annual meeting - The Nebraska Academy of Sciences and affiliated societies, Volumes 76-85, pg 52
 * Nebraska history, Volumes 20-21‎ - Page 70 (Nebraska Historical Society)
 * Who's who in American education: a biographical dictionary of ..., Volume 13‎ - Page 257
 * The true life Wild West memoir of a bush-popping cow waddy, by Charley Hester, Kirby Ross
 * Western Story: The Recollections of Charley O'Kieffe, 1884-1898‎ - Page 205
 * Publications - Nebraska State Historical Society, Volume 27‎ - Page 176
 * Published sources on Territorial Nebraska: an essay and bibliography, pg 17
 * Private voices, public lives: women speak on the literary life‎ - Page 17
 * History of Garden County, Nebraska, 1885-1985, Volume 1‎ - Page 409
 * Nebraska Library Association quarterly‎ - Page 21
 * Bulletin of the American Home Economics Association‎ - Page 76
 * Railroad history, Issues 176-177‎ - Page 65
 * The lure of the land: a social history of the public lands from the Articles ...‎ - Page 158
 * The American Indian integration of baseball‎ - Page 223
 * The Nebraska state medical journal, Volume 24‎ - Page 199
 * Populism, progressivism, and the transformation of Nebraska politics, 1885-1915‎ - Page 208
 * The call of the range: the story of the Nebraska Stock Growers Association‎ - Page 142
 * American nursing: a biographical dictionary‎ - Page 167
 * American legislative leaders, 1850-1910‎ - Page 558
 * Business education world, Volume 21‎ - Page 150


 * Of course these are "not reliable", right? Please do your homework. BTW I have an accredited PhD -- I know how to do research. And I know a reliable source when I see one.... 17:16, 13 April 2010 (UTC)~


 * I said nothing about this book not being a reliable source, only that it is not notable. You have still not addressed the underlying notability problem. Almost all of the books at Google books, as well as most of the web pages, are citing this book, and are therefore "trivial" mentions. This book is probably a great source for research, but, as far as I can tell, is not encyclopedic. --Fiftytwo thirty (talk) 21:07, 13 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Well it looks like you and I will never agree. As a historical document it is notable because it covers such a large number of notable Nebraskans at the time period of publication. It is more notable than any of the Who's Who books that are published by Marquis (which have articles in wikipedia) because it specializes on a specific geography and therefore is more focused. If this Who's Who is not notable, than none of the other historical biographical dictionaries are notable either -- because all of the books and sources citing any biographical dictionary merely "cite" them just like those that cite this one. You have to take the genre into account. I am beginning to get more and more disenchanted with all of the nitpicking of triviality. Maybe Wikipedia, which started with such a great idea, is becoming mired down. I spoke with the Wikimedia Foundation guys today and was not impressed either -- all of this may cause the few academics like myself who have supported Wikipedia to fall back to more standard approaches..... 00:46, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
 * What I would really like to see is a published source somewhere about this work, or something from a third party about the encyclopedia other than using it as a reference point. You have stated that this book is an invaluable resource for the people involved in Nebraska history. That is really all that is necessary. As a new page patroller, this page is currently the least of my worries. I am going to add the notability and stub templates and move on. Wikipedia has struggled, and continues to struggle with just what to include and what not to include. My basic point is this: A lot of good books have been written, and these books serve as reference points for scholars and even this encyclopedia. The guidelines attempts to discern notable books from books that should not be in this or any encyclopedia. The guidelines are obviously not foolproof; I would argue that notability is probably one of the most subjective judgments on this encyclopedia. The reality is that not every book referenced to by others deserves a Wikipedia article. I would like to see this article go beyond a few lines, half of which are quoted, to a form that gives some background as well as importance. --Fiftytwo thirty (talk) 01:29, 14 April 2010 (UTC)