Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Edmund Ward Poor (2nd nomination)


 * 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. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone  06:16, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Edmund Ward Poor
AfDs for this article: 
 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

This is a pseudo-vanity page an editor created about his grandpa. His alleged claim to fame is that he was a co-founder of an aircraft company, however that statement is not backed up by the one and only (questionable) source on him, which merely says he joined the company when it was founded. Other than that, he's just a guy who went to church, was involved in local politics, and had some kids. This is a genealogical entry, really. Nothing notable here, and no real good sources. R. fiend (talk) 04:47, 11 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete. The article is completely unsourced, and it doesn't assert notability. -- Captain Disdain (talk) 14:31, 11 February 2009 (UTC) Keep. Notabilitywise I think it's still a little iffy (see below), but at least it's sourced now. -- Captain Disdain (talk) 19:54, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Note - this was under a different name the first time in AfD (in 2005 - closed as "no consensus"): see Articles for deletion/Ed Poor. Note the first link above is a redirect to this (..."Ed Poor") page. 147.70.242.54 (talk) 19:23, 11 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Speedy Keep This is a pseudo-disruptive nomination which fails WP:BEFORE. The topic is notable in spades as a trivial search indicates. Colonel Warden (talk) 16:21, 12 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Having looked into the matter further, this seems to be a case of WP:HOUND. Tsk. Colonel Warden (talk) 17:22, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Can you give us an example of a trivial search that shows significant coverage? I googled "Edmund Ward Poor" and got little.  Friday (talk) 17:23, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I have already added a citation to the NYT to the article and numerous search links to the article's talk page (which was empty). Please show us your search. Colonel Warden (talk) 17:29, 12 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, I'm not sure the article still asserts notability. I mean, sure, the guy was one of the company's founders and served as its director, but does that make him notable? Maybe it does. (Well, the NYT articles would indicate that he was considered a notable person at the time, I guess, so fair enough. But that really should be reflected in the article as well; just running a company doesn't seem like that notable a thing to me. Anyway, at least it's sourced to some degree now.) -- Captain Disdain (talk)


 * The first search on the talk page is the same as what I did. I checked the NYT links, and while I can't see the articles, one looks like a wedding notice and the other looks like an obit.  If only trivial coverage is available (as appears to be the case so far), I'd say the mention of him name in the company article is enough.  I see no evidence so far that there's enough sources about him to allow a biographical article.  Friday (talk) 20:49, 12 February 2009 (UTC)


 * All the article or the sources say is that he was one of about a dozen people who helped found a now defunct company and was its treasurer. Everything else is fluff. The only sources I see are about the company, merely mentioning his name briefly, and stuff like his obit. I see nothing notable here. I don't believe it is standard practice for WP to have articles on everyone who held a significant position in every company that has existed in the past 100 years. I notice we don't have entries on the other "founders" with the exception of Grumman himself and Swirbul (the real founders, according to the sources), probably because the other 7 or so people don't have grandkids writing for Wikipedia, or if they do, they know better than to write vanity articles on their ancestors in a contrived effort to mention themselves. If we are going to keep stuff like this we might as well have articles for everyone who has been an officer in any sizeable company, or maybe anyone who's had an obituary or a wedding announcement about them. Just about all the google hits provided on the talk page are wikimirrors, unreliable sources (including conservapedia), or passing mentions of the guy. The ones that leave out the middle name are almost all the wiki editor Ed Poor. The only source worth a damn is the book on Grumman cited in the article, and I'd be curious to know if that even says anything else about other than the 2 sentences we have. If he's only mentioned on one page of a 600 page book all about the company, it seems to reinforce the fact that he is not a notable person. -R. fiend (talk) 23:42, 12 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete The article only says that he was a successful accountant who invested $100,000 in the start-up of Grumman. That doesn't seem like notability to me.  The motives for the article's creation and for its AfD nomination have nothing to do with it. Redddogg (talk) 18:44, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
 * According to the Arbcom case, R_fiend claimed to have blocked User:Ed Poor while he must have been drunk or high. R_fiend also stated that he was a self-admitted "Snide Bastard".  Now we find R_fiend going after Ed Poor again.  Are we expected to believe that he is drunk again?  Is his failure to notify Ed Poor of the AFD and to declare his interest here due to such intoxication or is it a blatant breach of WP:HONEST?  This matter seems an utter disgrace.  The refusal of other editors to accept impeccable sources like the New York Times when they are found seems outrageous too.  What are you expecting as a better source?  The Bible?  Colonel Warden (talk) 19:42, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry, not drunk this time. And this isn't about Ed Poor, it's about an unencyclopedic article, regardless of who wrote it. All the New York Times states is that the guy got married and died. That's happened to about 20 billion people. If I sell my lawnmower in the NYT classifieds do I get a WP article because I'm mentioned in the Times? Where is reliably sourced information on his accomplishments? What actual information do we have on the guy other than that he invested money in some company 100 years ago, and was that company's treasurer? That much might qualify for a mention in the Grumman article, but this is just an editor writing about his grandpa. Right now we have exactly one source that says anything worth a damn, and that is a book about Grumman planes. Apparently that book says little about him, which is hardly surprising. Are you really stating that a marriage announcement and an obituary are top of the line sources for information on a businessman? Find me other Wikipedia articles on companies' early investors and we'll have a look at those too. Grumman is notable. Swirbul is notable. The guy who gave them money is not, at least not unless reliable sources can verify that he did something significant that can't be covered in a single sentence in the Grumman article (or that it's even significant enough for that). The fact that almost the only information on the guy is about his marriage and death show that he really isn't a notable figure. I suppose if we found a newspaper article from 1920 stating he got the the best time in the 100 yard dash at a local track meet you'd use that as further evidence of just how notable Edmund Ward Poor is. If he is notable, write 5 sentences about something other than his personal life. So far it seems no one has been able to. Right now the article reads like an obituary, so I guess it's not surprising that's one of the only sources for it. -R. fiend (talk) 20:35, 13 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep He had a NYT obituary. Consensus, 100% keep rate, has been to keep articles about people with obituaries in the NYT.John Z (talk) 23:33, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep improved article as meeting all of the nom's concerns, except his animous toward the author. I don't care WHO authored it if it serves to improve Wiki.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 01:03, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Grumman as his chief claim to fame was to be one of five founders of Grumman. His work in local government doesn't add much toward satisfying WP:BIO, and I don't see anything else aside from his premature death (but thousands drown at a young age every year). This almost reads as a eulogy. If more can be added about his career, it might be enough to make the WP:BIO bar for a standalone article, but for now, a mention in the Grumman article should be sufficient. B.Wind (talk) 03:52, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Bwind makes a good point, methinks. If this article can be fleshed out so it covers his accomplishments, we'd have a much better case for keeping this. Everyone seems to be impressed with his NYT obit (I was unaware that such an obit was a free pass into Wikipedia, is that really true?), but does it say anything of substance? (I can't read it without paying, which I don't want to do; can someone relate its contents here?) Right now it's only used as a source for his death, which, while tragic, is hardly a claim to fame. If this touted source doesn't give us anything of substance except that he was one of the first investors in Grumman and its treasurer and director, then we really just have a sentence or two of substantive information, and that is already included in the Grumman article, making a redirect a sensible choice. Filling it out with fluff about his family and breaking out a separate article is one of the reasons why Wikipedia has nearly 3 million articles, a small fraction of which are actually good. I'm skeptical that it can be done, but if details about his role at Grumman (pretty clearly the only notable thing about him) can be discovered and added then we might have an encyclopedia article rather than some sort of genealogical/eulogy piece. -R. fiend (talk) 07:58, 14 February 2009 (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.