Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bobby R. Himes


 * 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   Delete. TexasAndroid (talk) 17:52, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Bobby R. Himes

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

Fails Notability (academics) and WP:BIO. Only award was the Kentucky "Unbridled Spirit" Award, not a particularly notable award. Toddst1 (talk) 21:35, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - per nom.-- S R X  21:41, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep -- overall life story touches encompasses both politics and education. He won at least four major awards too and a fifth award named for him. He was eulogized on the floor of the U.S. Senate by the Minority Leader.Billy Hathorn (talk) 22:22, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Question: Can you be specific? Otherwise it's heresay. Toddst1 (talk) 22:27, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, it's in the article with documentation: 4 awards; Unbridled Spirit, two "Man of the Year", "Outstanding Educator" and "Outstanding Social Studies Teacher". Also non-ficton writer.Billy Hathorn (talk) 22:45, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Also a fifth award is named for him.Billy Hathorn (talk) 23:04, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Clarification::None of these are considered major awards that would condone any level of notability.
 * “Man of the Year” designations from Campbellsville civic groups - not a notable award
 * Outstanding Social Studies Teacher - from Kentucky Council for the Social Studies - not a major award
 * Outstanding educator - not mentioned in the article.
 * Unbridled Spirit - arguably the most significant award, but still, not a WP:Notable award.
 * None of them are enough to satisfy:
 * The person has received a highly prestigious academic award or honor at a national or international level." which would be needed for Notability (academics)
 * The person has received a notable award or honor, or has been often nominated for them. which would be needed for WP:BIO
 * The key words are notable award. While in Kentucky they may be notable, they're not WP:Notable on wikipedia. Toddst1 (talk) 12:31, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
 * gotta say there, that kentucky spirit award, while notable in kentucky is also notable as per wp:notable and trumped by common sense. --Buridan (talk) 11:30, 1 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep there is a chronic lack of Ghits but there are a few sources which I believe established a base level nobility. (eg. ) - Icewedge (talk) 06:02, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment: Those are obituaries which are typically not used to establish WP:Notability. Toddst1 (talk) 12:33, 30 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions.   —Nsk92 (talk) 19:10, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. Does not pass either WP:BIO or WP:PROF. In terms of WP:PROF there is almost no record of Himes having published anything (except for a kind of autobiographical book "Life in the Shadows of Hartford College and Campbellsville University") and no evidence of his research having made substantial impact in the field: no citations of his work, no reviews or anything else. There are some local awards such as "Unbridled Spirit" award, but it is not really an academic award and not significant enough to satisfy criterion 2 of WP:PROF. For WP:BIO one would have to look at possible notability for his political activism. Having been a county chairman of the Republican party is not enough, especially in the view of the absence of significant news coverage, even at the local level. There is an obituary in the local newspaper, cited by Icewedge above, and McConnell's Senate floor speech. That's not enough to pass WP:BIO in my opinion, in the absence of wider state and national coverage. GoogleNews: zero hits, GoogleScholar: zero hits, GoogleBooks: 2 hits, plain Google search: 54 hits. Nsk92 (talk) 19:23, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
 * delete Toddst1 & Nsk92 have it right, fails WP:BIO and fails WP:PROF. Pete.Hurd (talk) 22:15, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
 * keep passes general notability, might be a regional effect, but is notable in the state of kentucky to a significant degree as demonstrated in the article.  we need to be careful to avoid systemic bias against regional notability in cases like these. the question is, 'is he notable?' the answer is 'yes', the question is not 'where is he notable?' answer 'only kentucky, then delete' --Buridan (talk) 11:34, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
 * This is not consistent with WP:POLITICIAN and WP:PROF guidelines requirements and the de facto consensus on how such cases are usually treated. In the presence of well developed special notability guidelines such as WP:BIO and WP:PROF, they should take precedence over WP:N. Academic notability is defined in WP:PROF as notability in one's academic field of study, not in a particular location, and such notability requires wider coverage. WP:POLITICIAN (a portion of WP:BIO) says the following regarding local politicians: "Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage". There is a footnote defining significant press coverage there whose relevant portion reads "A politician who has received "significant press coverage" has been written about, in depth, independently in multiple news feature articles, by journalists." It is fairly clear that these requirements are not met here. Nsk92 (talk) 12:50, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
 * nice lawyering, but wp:iar and wp:common, just because someone slips through the guidelines of x or y, does not mean he's not notable. he's notable in that he has won significant awards, he has participated significantly in local politics, he was a longstanding professor at a local college.   i ask, does having the article of a noted local person improve wikipedia?   is this information that others will benefit from and makes wikipedia richer?  is it verifiable?   yes, yes, yes.  he's notable, it's verifiable, and it makes wikipedia better. thank you for pointing out why the rules don't apply here though.--Buridan (talk) 13:10, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
 * "Lawyering"? Please. I have presented rational arguments for my position based in existing policies and guidelines and based on prior consensus on how such cases are usually handled. You want to present counter-arguments, fine, but throwing out denigrating adjectives at other users is unseemly and does not help you case. Please look up WP:CIVIL. Nsk92 (talk) 13:50, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
 * if you want to make your case, make it on common sense. if you have to cite the policies, especially when it is clear that your line of argument relies on those policies in areas where they are not always applicable, then you will get called on it.   The gentleman in question is notable, you've provided no argument against his notability, you just claim that he is not notable under policies that do not fit him well.  so i cited two things that we look to when the rules don't fit.   So you think he is not notable because he doesn't seem to be notable under policies that don't fit him well.  ask yourself, is wikipedia a better encyclopedia with this entry.  my answer is that yes, it is because it fills in a substantive part of history, culture, and relationships in kentucky politics.  --Buridan (talk) 15:16, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I have made an argument based on the existing notability guidelines in the areas where they are applicable, WP:BIO and WP:PROF and have provided arguments why I think the subject of this AfD does not satisfy the requirements of either. I happen to know something about them, with a fairly extensive AfD participation and having written most of the current version of WP:PROF myself. Nsk92 (talk) 15:29, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
 * And as I pointed out those don't work in this case, as it is atypical and regional and doesn't fit either of the models provided. I'm sure you are are fairly knowledgeable as you indicate, but that you contributed to an established policy does not make that policy apply.  as for our relative experience in wikipedia, i'm sure you have the better of me in many categories as you seem quite passionate about policies and rules.  on the other hand, i'm not sure having the better of someone matters much. --Buridan (talk) 16:44, 1 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. Darrenhusted (talk) 13:56, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Minor academic, professor in an unimportant college with no apparent publications except a local memoir. Minor politician, never even ran for office. Not even notable in Kentucky as a state--notable in his college town only. WP is very much a better encyclopedia without articles on people of this low degree of significance. The most relevant policy is NOT MEMORIAL.   DGG (talk) 02:12, 2 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Rebuttal to DGG You should not be so critical of smaller institutions. This one is officially a "university." You should not consider a politician to be one who runs for office only: there are behind-the-scenes politicians. This one was eulogized on the U.S. Senate floor and also noted by the Kentucky legislature. Being notable in KY is sufficient reason to be included. Also, his overall life story makes him compelling.Billy Hathorn (talk) 14:27, 2 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom and above comments. I've tried my best to stay out of this one, but I attend Campbellsville University and I never even heard of this guy until this AfD. The article doesn't seem to meet the general notability guidelines for inclusion, and I'm not sure how much weight the "he's notable in Kentucky" argument should really hold. I'm sure you've put a lot of hard work into this article, but I'm just not convinced that it's suitable for Wikipedia. As DGG pointed out, Wikipedia is not a memorial. Perhaps the article could be preserved in the author's namespace if they so wished? — MearsMan  talk  14:39, 2 September 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.