Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alfred Holmes


 * 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, consensus, including the nominator, agrees that the article meets the notability guidelines. Davewild (talk) 16:25, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Alfred Holmes

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

I believe the article breaks WP:BIO. The person does not seem to have received a notable award or honor, or has been often nominated for them, nor does the person seem to have made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field. The chief editor has informed he does have a book with a bio on the subject of the article, but he has been active since July 22 yet has not inserted any info from "published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject.", despite me informing him that he should insert such info by yesterday. I do assume good faith. However, it is conceivable that since the chief editor of the article seems to be a relative of Alfred Holmes, he may wish to see the article up, and might have just said something that he knew would make me extend a deadline I gave him to insert such info. EasyPeasy21 (talk) 08:34, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep If he is the main observer of these animals, he has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field. DGG (talk) 08:39, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
 * CommentTrue, but the statement that he is the main observer has not been backed up by sources/references. Without references, it could be assumed to not be a fact, but an opinion.  EasyPeasy21 (talk) 08:42, 28 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Weak delete Unless the author gets around to properly citing that secondary source. I feel doubts, though - this person may well be as notable as is claimed, so leave the page open for recreation if reliable sources can be found. Black-Velvet  09:26, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
 * apparent source The work given in the reference carries on p.32 the following "I would like to extend many thanks to Sergeant Alfred Holmes of the Gibraltar Regiment, Officer-in-Charge of monkeys, for tutoring me in the way of life of the monkeys and for generally assisting me with them. His extensive knowledge and comprehension of them was invaluable." I agree a further statement would be desirable. DGG (talk) 09:30, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Good find. Futhermore, according to WP:CREATIVE, a person may be regarded as notable if "the person [...] is widely cited by their peers or successors". Note how the source makes multiple references to "Holmes". RedCoat10 (talk) 09:35, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Comment Good points RedCoat10, and DGG. As I noticed earlier, Holmes is noted in the study. However, does being mentioned in one study constitute a pass of the criteria "widely cited by their peers or successors"? For one thing, the plural "successors" and "peers" implies that a person needs to be an established source of info amongst the scientific community. I do not believe one study constitutes establishment. Plus, "A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject" is one of the criteria used to establish if a person is notable. Although the study has employed Holmes, Holmes has not been the subject of the study, so it is arguable that the study does not fit the criteria. EasyPeasy21 (talk) 09:43, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Found a Los Angeles Times piece from 1988 that appears to feature Holmes quite prominently . I'm not paying the four bucks for the main article, but definitely non-trivial coverage of the article subject.  A Google News search suggested there were more news stories out there.  The story has obvious human interest to it, this is a good article for us to have if it gets cleaned up a little. Darkspots (talk) 14:39, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong keep A rather revered individual in the story of scientific studies of animals.  --Blechnic (talk) 15:46, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Nominator: Strong Keep With the discovery of the LA Times piece, and the subsequent use of it in the article, I believe that the article now statisfies WP:BIO. Thank you Darkspots.  EasyPeasy21 (talk) 19:13, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions.   --  Fabrictramp  |  talk to me  19:51, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment Thanks to all those who have contributed to improving the article during my absence. Your patience has been much appreciated. --Gibmetal 77 talk 09:29, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong keep Article now satisfies WP:BIO. --Gibmetal 77 talk 09:29, 1 August 2008 (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.