Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Barclay Harding Warburton II


 * 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. (non-admin closure) Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 05:12, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Barclay Harding Warburton II

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Article was speedy deleted by me as an A7, no indication of importance. The text at the time of deletion (and of this nomination) was "was an American businessman who died in a hunting accident in 1936" with a reliable source for this. This qualifies perfectly for A7, neither being a businessman nor being killed in a hunting accident is an indication of importance. However, the article author asked for an AfD instead.

As for the subject (taken separately from the state of the article at the time of the nomination): reliable sources can be found for his marriage, divorce and death, and he had a Royal Aero Club Certificate. Some members family seem to be notable, but that is not inherited. No source indicating any notability for this B. H. Warburton (there also was a I and a III) could be found. Fram (talk) 13:46, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions.
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions.


 * Comment. If he died in 1936 it seems unlikely that he was ever a member of the Hoover Commission (est. 1947) or even the Commission for Polish Relief (est. 1939).  He was apparently socially prominent enough for his obituary to be national news. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:32, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete - from Google, there seems to be little evidence that Barclay Harding Warburton II did anything notable. The New York Times is not a national newspaper in the traditional sense (having much of its news focused on New York state/city) and I think the obituary he received was a) very short b) in a general notices column c) focused more on the way he died than anything else. Unless someone can produce evidence that he has received more significant coverage, I think it's pretty safe to delete this. --Anthem 20:39, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
 * [Revert using strikeout as per WP:BANREVERT. 16:25, 21 August 2016 (UTC)]


 * Keep Its all in the references and every fact is referenced. Saying that the notability guideline is ignored because the notability comes from the New York Times does not make sense especially when Time magazine also ran an obituary and so did the Associated Press. You might also want to notice that the New York Times is not just a national newspaper but an international newspaper. I can pick it up in every major airport in the world. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 00:16, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Can you name anything he has done in his life that would make him notable? He had a stupid death, a stupid accident a few years earlier, some notable family, and...? I notice that the only claim in the original article, that he was a businessman, is now absent, so the original article was not only speedy deletable but also a rather bad presentation of who he really was. The current article has a lot of refs for little content, many of them very tangential to the actual subject. Substantial refs are the obituaries (which indeed seem more concerned with the unusual cause of death than anything else), and very short articles about abandoned plans and failed marriages. Why wuold we want an article on him? Fram (talk) 07:12, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Ask WP:Notability not me, it says: "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 or stand-alone list." Anything else is just subjectivity. You write: "Can you name anything he has done in his life that would make him notable" I ask that every time I see a sports star article and reality television star. People are notable when the media take notice and write about them, for whatever reason. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 07:16, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
 * WP:N doesn't force anyone to write an article. So I am left wondering: why did you feel the need to write an article for this person, to challenge the speedy deletion of the very short, incorrect old version, and to spend your time rewriting it? Fram (talk) 07:38, 27 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete The references do not satisfy WP:BIO. Wikipedia is not a directory of everyone who got a NY Times obituary. Edison (talk) 15:22, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
 * WP:BIO doesn't trump WP:GNG. You should also know better than to make a vague wave to a guideline without quoting it. You are also ignoring 12 other references including an obituary by the Associated Press and one in Time magazine, which gives the impression you didn't read the article and just read the previous postings. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 15:37, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually, as a more specific guideline, it DOES trump GNG. Also, nice violation of WP:AGF, Richard. I read the article before the Delete !vote, and did not find notability. A minor socialite who got an obituary. Not the stuff of which great encyclopedias are made. Edison (talk) 03:12, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
 * No, WP:N which includes WP:GNG independently defines notability without regard to WP:BIO, see WP:N. There are multiple paths to notability.  Unscintillating (talk) 18:14, 29 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep, weakly. This fellow was the American equivalent of the minor European nobles that sometimes come up on notability issues.  Since they usually meet WP:GNG, they usually get kept; and he seems to do the same.  He was related by blood or marriage to the socially prominent Warburton, Wanamaker, and Vanderbilt families.  He was the sort of dude who shot pheasants and flew airplanes as a hobby.  He was invited to serve on government panels based on no obvious qualification other than money and connections.   Wanting to delete this article is class warfare!  - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:57, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep It would be a great deal more difficult to argue in favor of notability if the only source that existed was his obituary in The New York Times, but the continuing coverage offered to him by other major national publications about him, his relationships and his exploits -- including a journey by plane around the world -- demonstrate a level of coverage that far surpasses the minimums needed to establish notability. Alansohn (talk) 16:56, 27 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete: no substantive articulation of notability (just a list of interests), no indication that topic meets WP:BIO, no indication of depth of coverage. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 07:39, 28 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Weak keep or Merge the three articles into Warburton family. There is some coverage in google books on him. That's the thing, what do socialites do? We have articles on Lady Victoria Harvey and Jade Goody so why not this guy. Harvey is probably the best British example of a socialite doing absolutely nothing except attend "dos".♦ Dr. Blofeld  11:37, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Isn't being famous for being famous for being a a socialite essentially being famous for who you know & who you're related to, and thus only WP:INHERITED fame-but-not-notability? HrafnTalkStalk(P) 11:48, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree, which is why I think it would be better for a merged article about the Warburton family which I believe is notable given the coverage of them and the American equivalent to European noble families we have articles for. But as an individual article it seems almost pointless... ♦ Dr. Blofeld  11:52, 28 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep there are reliable sources in the article now, showing coverage that indicates notability. He was important enough that Time magazine listed his death in their Milestone sections.  This was also given greater coverage in The Meriden Daily Journal - Nov 27, 1936 .  He seemed to be covered in the media, and not just because who he was related to.   D r e a m Focus  15:14, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
 * 13 sources needed for just 11 sentences? That is hardly indicative of the depth of coverage required for notability. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 16:09, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Whether or not it is true that those sources do not have 'depth of coverage', which your formula fails to establish, Notability_(people) states, "If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple sources may be combined to demonstrate notability..." Unscintillating (talk) 19:06, 28 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Do you have a comment on the two resources I linked to? Time magazine considers the person notable, as does The Meriden Daily Journal.   D r e a m Focus  16:16, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
 * TIME gave him only a single paragraph for an obituary -- so no, I would not accept that they 'considered him notable'. That The Meriden Daily Journal (of Meriden, Connecticut, hardly a prominent source) gives his obit a few paragraphs more does not add that much notability. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 16:28, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia only cares if it is a reliable source not a "prominent source". We have three reliable sources with obituaries: Associated Press, Time magazine, and the New York Times. The Meriden Daily Journal is the AP version. I would say anyone whose birth, marriage or death appears in the Time magazine milestones column is ipso facto notable. Most deaths reported in that column are just a few sentence. That has to do with the format of the column, not the notability of the person named. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 01:19, 29 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep. The topic of an article should be notable, or "worthy of notice"; that is, "significant, interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded." So says WP:Notability and I agree, and for this man, he was interesting and unusual enough for me to have him included in Wikipedia. His relatives and connections with "old Philadelphia" people of his time are interesting as part of the upper class scene. --DThomsen8 (talk) 20:32, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Snow Keep The latest news is that the NYT Time magazine 1926 reference to this person being a member of the "Hoover Commission in Poland, in Paris" is credible as having happened as part of World War I, possibly 1915.  Unscintillating (talk) 20:59, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Maybe, but born on June 15, 1898, he would be 17 in late 1915, rather early in life to be on a commission in Paris.--DThomsen8 (talk) 02:28, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
 * The American Relief Administration was set up in 1919, and he would have been 21 and just graduating from college. The commision has nothing to do with Paris, reread the article and the reference. He was divorced in Paris. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 06:20, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
 * It is silly to assert "snow keep" when there have been several delete arguments. Edison (talk) 03:14, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I expect that the previous respondent is confusing "speedy keep" with "snow keep". WP:Snow keep is a part of WP:IAR that is an essay, which means I'm saying that I see that the case is closed, it is time to move on.  To be sure, if the previous respondent doesn't agree to a snow keep then I see no need to hurry to close this.  Unscintillating (talk) 18:03, 29 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment: given that the American Relief Administration existed (outside Russia) from 1919-22, and that BHW2 was only 21 in 1919, got married in Maryland that year, and had a son in 1922, it seems likely that he was simply a junior staffer in the ARA's head office, rather than a field worker in Poland. And I would suggest that such a brief and ambiguous mention of a likewise brief and likely low-level appointment isn't really worthy of mention -- let alone inclusion in the lead. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 06:46, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I took an earlier version out, and now it is back in the lede in a longer form. I agree with HrafnTalkStalk(P) on this detail about the lede, and I will take the whole sentence about this matter out. --DThomsen8 (talk) 14:00, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I have restored it. Original research doesn't trump reliable sources. Thinking that he was too young is speculation, and thinking that the position was "likely [a] low-level appointment" is again speculation. The Wikipedia rule is verifiability using reliable sources, not speculation. Four references from reliable sources place him in that position with the wording used by the sources. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 16:24, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
 * And I have changed it to being a sergeant, not a technical adviser one doesn't exclude the other, but it's the only thing I could verify). I have explained why on the talk page of the article. "Four references from reliable sources place him in that position with the wording used by the sources." means that three sources have him in Poland, and one seemed to indicate that he was a technical adviser from what you could get from Google Books snippet view, but not from more scrutiny? Or do you have actual sources, quotes, for this piece of information? Fram (talk) 12:19, 30 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep Evidently notable, the topic should be retained in accordance with our editing policy. Warden (talk) 21:43, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
 * You made a typo, Colonel Warden, you certainly mean delete per our editing policy? WP:PRESERVE's second section is "Problems that may justify removal", which links a.o. to WP:NOT: in there, we have WP:NOTDIR, which has the eminently sane remark that "Biography articles should only be for people with some sort of fame, achievement, or perhaps notoriety." (my emphasis) Could you explain what makes Warburton II famous or notorious, or what was the achievement he made? Because, among all the sources and passing mentions, I couldn't find anything at all. Fram (talk) 07:18, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I imagine he read WP:GNG which states "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 or stand-alone list." I am assuming your argument is that he has fame without any achievement. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 07:35, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Please point to which of the sources (most of which appear to give him very superficial mention) "address the subject directly in detail", as required by that guideline. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 07:43, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
 * WP:NOTDIR goes on to say "One measure of these is whether someone has been featured in several external sources (on or off-line)." In this case, we have several external sources and so, by this measure, the person has some sort of fame or achievement. Q.E.D.  My !vote stands. Warden (talk) 07:40, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I would note that WP:NOTDIR says "featured" (cf WP:N's "address the subject directly in detail"), not merely 'mentioned in passing' -- that rather indicates that a degree of depth, which the sources for this article generally lack, is required. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 07:48, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
 * You tried that argument already and the reply was a quote from Notability (people): "If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple sources may be combined to demonstrate notability." Ten facts from ten sources have, mathematically, the same depth of coverage as ten facts from one source. WP:Directory is there to remind us that appearing in a telephone book does not make you notable, since it provides just two facts about any person, their address and telephone number, neither of which appear in standard biographies. Having three national biographies is a measure of his fame, despite lacking a great achievement. People were called "socialites" then and "celebrities" now. This is someone having fame, despite not having a major achievement. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 08:02, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Except that WP:GNG does not demand "sources [that] address the subject directly in detail" idly or in isolation -- it does so "so no original research is needed to extract the content." The trouble we have had trying to piece together Warburton's Hoover/Polish activities from the tiny snippets available from the sources that we have demonstrates the importance of this. Further, WP:Notability (people) goes on to explicitly state that "trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may not be sufficient to establish notability." I would suggest that much of the coverage we have here is "trivial". HrafnTalkStalk(P) 09:58, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
 * The GNG is a guideline, EP and NOT are policies. This is a case where the guideline is clearly too lenient when interpreted to the letter, and the article doesn't meet the spirit of it, as it is spelled out in NOT. Fram (talk) 08:17, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
 * And please don't change your comment after someone has already replied. If you want to compare this to now, he would be an extremely minor "celebrity", D-list probably, who only got in the news (briefly, in passing) when he had another divorce, harebrained idea or stupid accident. It's bad enough that some people create articles on such non-entities living now, but to do the same for someone forgotten for the last seventy years is stretching the GNG, WP:NOT and common sense to new extremes. Fram (talk) 08:59, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
 * The context for the quote you made from WP:NOT was "Genealogical entries" but this topic is not a genealogical entry. You seem to be trying to stretch that policy to exclude subjects who, in your opinion, lack moral worth because they are stupid socialites and celebrities.  Opinions of this sort are contrary to core policy and so have no place here.  We rely instead upon the judgement of the editorial staff of reputable organs such as Time and New York Times.  As they considered that this subject was worthy of notice, we just follow their lead. Warden (talk) 09:43, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
 * "Lack moral worth"? Umm, no, that's not my position. I don't care about the moral worth of anyone here, I care about what the purpose of an encyclopedia is. That the judgment of the editorial staff at those publications back then was way off is bad, but we shouldn't continue their errors. You claim that it is not a genealogy, but the only reason he has gotten any attention is because of his family ties, not for anything he did. Fram (talk) 09:54, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
 * We have no reason to prefer your judgement to that of independent professionals. Note, by the way, that the genealogy policy is pretty much a dead letter as a recent case demonstrates. Warden (talk) 16:08, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
 * That is covered by WP:GNG also" "Notability is not temporary: once a topic has been the subject of "significant coverage" in accordance with the general notability guideline, it does not need to have ongoing coverage." --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 15:31, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't personally consider Chelsea Clinton to have done anything except grow up in the White House, but she gets a lot of press. If reliable sources write about it, it is verifiable and has met the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia.  The argument that "the sources made errors in judgement in noticing him and we should now improve the encyclopedia by ignoring him" is IMO contrary to WP:V and WP:OR.  Unscintillating (talk) 01:44, 1 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz Humbug! 04:26, 3 June 2011 (UTC)


 * <small class="delsort-notice">Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions.  — -- Cirt (talk) 09:15, 3 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep as having accumulated lasting notability. There seems to be a view in some quarters that WP:GNG are overridden if the notability came about by association with some other person, activity or organisation. I think that is unsustainable. People come to prominence for  a wide variety of reasons including accident of birth, inherited wealth, a sexual relationship leading to a film part or whatever, or just being in the right place at the right time.  GNG tests the degree of prominence. Once notable, always notable addresses whether he was notable by the standards of the time, not whether he would have attracted so much attention today. And whilst I had never heard of the man, the fact that he seems to have been well known in certain circles in his day means that there is a reasonable chance that somebody studying or reading about the social life of the period might come across him and want to look him up, which is a reasonable test for an encyclopedia. --AJHingston (talk) 10:23, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep Notable in his day. Article is much improved with more references. --DThomsen8 (talk) 19:12, 8 June 2011 (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.