Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Edward Francis Anhalt


 * 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. A much stronger case against the sources (or at least, a detailed one) would need to be made to show it fails WP:N, which hasn't happened here. As it stands it's asserted, but not shown or demonstrated or such. Thus, the assertion that it does, which is both demonstrated and appears to be correct, carries the discussion. Wily D 08:08, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Edward Francis Anhalt

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

At Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Dreduardoa/sandbox, there was a contention that the page might be a hoax. I've reviewed the page and found it to be well-sourced and have moved the page to mainspace to open an AfD to determine whether or not this is a hoax. I am  neutral . Cunard (talk) 20:26, 21 August 2012 (UTC) Opinion changed; see below. Cunard (talk) 23:14, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 23:35, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 23:35, 21 August 2012 (UTC)


 * note: Well, some pieces are verifiable; I've found a newspaper clip about "Park-it market" to be associated with an Ed Anhalt, but it is still unclear what degree of involvement this person had in all these enterprises. So far I don't see any particular notability of this businessman, despite numerous local news refs. Staszek Lem (talk) 00:08, 22 August 212 (UTC)
 * Comment Please do not move a potential hoax to main space. If you think it is potentially a hoax, do not vandalize Wikipedia by putting a hoax in main space. It could have been left in the sandbox until you decided it was not a hoax. Eau (talk) 12:36, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Your ungrounded accusations of vandalism are without merit. Had this userspace draft not been submitted to AfC and been submitted directly into the mainspace instead, it would not have been eligible for speedy deletion. I am bringing this here so that a potentially notable topic will not languish unnoticed in the userspace because of verification issues. Conversely, if the AfD determines that the article is fabricated, then there is no doubt that this page should not be hosted in any namespace on Wikipedia. Cunard (talk) 17:50, 23 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment I can't see any reason to believe the draft was a hoax. Though neither can I see a great deal to convince me the subject meets WP:GNG. If the nominator withdraws this AfD, maybe the article should be moved back to AfC to allow the author to improve it. If Cunard had doubts about the article's validity, they shouldn't have moved it to main space! Sionk (talk) 17:36, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Based purely on the sources in the article (and not on whether they exist and are not misrepresented), Edward Francis Anhalt seems to pass WP:GNG. However, the sources cannot be verified as they are offline, which is why I am bringing this to the AfD community for review. The article is sufficiently sourced, so I do not believe further work on it at AfC will make much of a difference. I make no comment about whether the article is a hoax. Cunard (talk) 17:50, 23 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment: I've asked and  to review the article because they are experienced with reviewing sources. If anyone believes that other editors from Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Dreduardoa/sandbox should be notified, feel free to do so. Cunard (talk) 18:02, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment: Based on this discovery by, Edward Francis Anhalt exists: "Edward Anhalt is a distant cousin of two-time Academy Award winning screenwriter Edward Anhalt" But whether the rest of the article can be verified is a question and whether the subject is notable is another. Cunard (talk) 18:08, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep I haven't completed a full investigation of all these citations in the article, but as discussed above, this is certainly not a hoax. Many of the sources them appear to exist and provide independent coverage of the subject, particularly in regard to his company, Banking on Kids.  The independent sources I've found so far, currently in the article, appear to fulfill WP:GNG.  Note:  I've also identified many sources that are not independent, but nonetheless verify important claims made about the subject.  I, Jethrobot  drop me a line (note: not a bot!) 09:09, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment: wrote: "Really don't have a desire to get into a deletion debate like that while doing London Paralympic coverage. : / Only so much stress one can take. I can tell you that despite claims the sources look like they pass WP:GNG, I found several did not actually support the text written and some claims were downright dubious. (The guy is a dean at a university that sells diplomas. Erk.) --LauraHale (talk) 00:58, 25 August 2012 (UTC)" Some examples appear in the MfD and on Talk:Edward Francis Anhalt: "Is it possible for someone to look at the following article and let me know if it is written correctly: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Dreduardoa/sandbox Thanks so much. Ed Anhalt — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.63.169.2 (talk • contribs) 21:03, 23 July 2012 No.  I've manually checked http://wisc.edu .  No where on the page can I find 'was born in Providence, Rhode Island in 1946 to Jack and Sadye Anhalt (nee Moskol). He grew up in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, where he attended Washington High School, and later graduated with a Bachelor of Science degree from the University of Wisconsin ' supported.  This source does not support it. A manual check of http://county.milwaukee.gov  shows 'He previously served as the Marketing Director for the Milwaukee Department of Parks, Recreation, and Culture ' is not supported.  Can you quote where on http://county.milwaukee.gov this statement can be verified? --LauraHale (talk) 03:44, 24 July 2012 (UTC)" Cunard (talk) 04:04, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I cleared up the Parks position thing. It's not technically called a "marketing director," but instead was a "development manager."  It may or may not be the same thing, but it's sourced, at least.   I, Jethrobot  drop me a line (note: not a bot!) 08:39, 25 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete First of all, I doubt it's a hoax. The inability to properly document the high school education is irrelevant--in those cases where's it is documented, it's almost always based merely on the person's own autobio statements. Most people in graduate school after the first year teach, usually for money, sometimes for experience,sometimes as a requirement of the program. It's on my CV too, but I doubt you could find it in any accessible public record.  His doctorate, which is normally documentable, is documented. (We've had one or two examples over the years where we couldn't document a thesis. We deleted those articles.) None of that affects his notability in any case. His company exists. It did what the sources say. The question is whether wha tthey say is significant coverage and amounts to notability . That's where =I have my doubts. I suspect they just amount to PR. This is my usual feeling for local coverage of what impresses my as very minor accomplishments.  DGG ( talk ) 05:57, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment The page has been updated with found sources, which were previously left without any relevant links in which to check the context. I've also cleaned the page up so it sounds less WP:PROMO-y.  Given the state of things now that there are actual sources to work with, I cannot agree with DGG.  These pieces in The Milwaukee Sentinel and Milwaukee Journal do not amount to PR-- they genuinely recognize the subject as big event promoter in the 1980s.  And it isn't just one article-- it's tons.  The best examples that provide in-depth coverage would be these:, , , .  On top of that is the coverage he gets through his banking-related organization for kids.  I think any accusation that the subject isn't notable because the coverage is local to the Milwaukee area is bunk because 1) The banking coverage goes beyond the immediate city, and 2) The coverage was persistent, it wasn't just a few articles that give bare mentions of him for a single event.  Anhault passess WP:GNG easily given this quality of coverage.  I, Jethrobot  drop me a line (note: not a bot!) 08:36, 25 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep per The Heymann Standard. 's substantial work on the article has demonstrated that the subject is notable, passing Notability with sustained significant coverage. As mentioned above by I Jethrobot, the sources include a 1982 article from the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, a 1989 article from the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, a 1991 article from the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, and a 2002 article from the Northwestern Financial Review. Each article provides nontrivial coverage about the subject. I Jethrobot, please confirm that you have removed everything unsupported by reliable sources and anything that violates Template:Failed verification. Cunard (talk) 23:14, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I reviewed the article again per your request and made appropriate changes; some sources are offline and cannot be accessed through Google News or through my university's newspaper search database. However, their titles indicate that certain statements in the article are verifiable, but beyond that they are not used to support notability and are not used to infer any specific details.  Outside of these, I can confirm that no other statements are based on unreliable sources.  I, Jethrobot  drop me a line (note: not a bot!) 23:43, 26 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep - I found and added more referenced material for the article (reference numbers 1,12,13,29,30,33,34 in tis version - some not linkable online and some are). I didn't fully mine the references I added to the article for content to add to the article and I think that is true of the other references in the article. In otherwords, the article could be expanded significantly from the sources now listed in the article. He's basically a community organizer (since at least 1995) and, as a community organizer, the newspapers covered him and the events he organizes since 1995. He's done a lot of things that resulted in the biographical topic received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Clearly meets WP:GNG. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 12:27, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 15:07, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

 Relist comment: I relisted this so that further discussion on the reliability of the sources provided can take place. Also, some of the more sources added later in the debate could do with more time for discussion. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 11:52, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment The majority of the sources come from the Milwaukee Journal and the Milwaukee Sentinel (now combined into the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel. Others come from financial and business magazines or newspapers.  There are some primary sources, but those are necessary for the sake of verifying details not likely to be found elsewhere.  I've already addressed issues regarding offline sources above.  I'm not really seeing a compelling argument for relisting this discussion.  I, Jethrobot  drop me a line (note: not a bot!) 02:57, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete. I'm in general agreement with DGG here. The subject fails WP:PROF as a prof and WP:POLITICIAN as a local official. Mining the local newspapers for passing mentions of him in various local events does not amount to satisfying WP:GNG; it's simply Bombardment. Tijfo098 (talk) 07:48, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
 * First, these aren't local papers. They were the two largest papers in circulation in Wisconsin.  Second, several sources describe the subject with coverage that surpasses trivial mentions.  Third, no one advanced an argument for keeping per WP:PROF or WP:POLITICIAN.  You should also take note of Bombardment:
 * When the sources are identical to one another or otherwise redundant, on the other hand, this can be seen as bombardment.
 * With the exception of coverage of him in relation to his banking-related organization (which by the way, is not local coverage per this report from CNN), there is no redundancy in the coverage. Some events (like the flea market) had greater coverage, and had different information to report.  Therefore, I think this is a weak argument for deletion.  I, Jethrobot  drop me a line (note: not a bot!) 08:07, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Brief interview quotes like in that CNN piece, don't satisfy WP:N in my view: [...] Bank of America has discounts for high-school and college students [...]¶ Smaller banks are also getting involved with education programs. For instance, there's the Banking on Kids program in Wisconsin. Founder Ed Anhalt started it five years ago, and participation includes 15 banks in and around Milwaukee and 75 schools. School children save up in the classroom. Once they hit $10 they open a savings account with the sponsor bank.¶ Anhalt thinks the program is successful because it reaches children before their habits are set. "We've got first graders who are learning terms like principal and compound interest (and) Federal Reserve," he said.¶ As scary as that might sound, it serves a valuable purpose, he said. There's a lack of interest in serving children, particularly in inner cities, and in some cases the children's parents don't use a bank.¶ Anhalt is working to establish the program in Minnesota and Iowa, and talking about bringing it to New York.¶ But parents looking to establish accounts for the kids themselves can find some attractive ones.¶ Cleveland-based KeyCorp has the kind of account parents might want to look for. Its DinoSaver account [...]

(Emphasis mine.) It's no more justifiable to have a biography for Anhalt based on that than it is to have an article about the DinoSaver account of KeyCorp. Tijfo098 (talk) 11:59, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree with that WP:PROF and WP:POLITICIAN are irrelevant. In previous AfDs,  has voted "delete" on articles that have the "significant coverage" required by Notability because of an aversion to local coverage. I have agreed with this position in the past when the sources were written promotionally, as if they were created by the article subject's PR staff (see Articles for deletion/The Gelato Fiasco). This is certainly not the case here. The sources I Jethrobot has provided here are written neutrally and lack the fluff and PR-speak typical of unreliable local sources. To discriminate against these sources because of their geographical location is not supported by Notability. Furthermore, the Northwestern Financial Review mentioned above cannot be considered a local source. 's statement (bolding added for emphasis) "Mining the local newspapers for passing mentions of him in various local events does not amount to satisfying WP:GNG" is unambiguously false. The sources I mentioned in my "keep" vote here each provide substantial coverage of the subject. To call them "passing mentions" is a misuse of the phrase. The invoking of Bombardment is another misinterpretation as explained by I Jethrobot. I agree with Tijfo098 that the CNN article does not amount to the "significant coverage" required by Notability; however, the CNN article is supplemental to the other sources which do establish notability so it does not matter whether it's significant coverage or not. Cunard (talk) 05:56, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
 * The Northwestern Financial Review covers the same Banking for Kids initiative as does the CNN article. Unlike the latter it is indeed focused on the initiative, so it may have one or two extra details about Anhalt to flesh the story better, none of which seem substantive enough to include in a Wikipedia article. The Wikipedia article section on that topic is already filled with Anhalt's thoughts about the project rather than anything less fluffy. Lacking any long-term interest from the press puts that pretty squarely in the kind of fleeting press coverage that Notability (events) discourage. This biographical article is basically wrapping that non-quite-noteworthy-in-the-long-run event into a biography. It's a sleight of hand to claim WP:GNG compliance, when it's clearly against its spirit. Tijfo098 (talk) 21:27, 3 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep per WP:GNG. The present version has enough significant coverage by independent reliable sources in the references.  The new sources add a lot.    Logical Cowboy (talk) 21:16, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete per DGG. And soon; way too much time spent this article in mainspace already. Bye-bye. Eau (talk) 00:03, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment May I point out that DGG's comments were made 9 days ago before substantial edits to the article and the addition of references? I don't think that ditto-ing a comment on a previous version of an article is a compelling rationale.  This is not to take away from DGG's comments, when they were written.  I wish he would take another look at the article, 9 days later.  Logical Cowboy (talk) 00:12, 3 September 2012 (UTC)


 * I based my comment on the current state of the article, the editors did OR of primary sources to come up with his bio and combined these with promotional blurbs from the local press. Eau (talk) 00:48, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I took another look. I do not consider his career as a promoter notable.Nor as a banker--that paragraph is promotional, for what is after all a rather routine activity. The references are mostly just mentions--anyone who promotes events will be mentioned in the listings of the events.  And the problem about duplication is real. it's become a common practice to do this on promotional articles, and it should be discouraged.  DGG ( talk ) 00:39, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Your reassessment is disappointing. Simply calling the above paragraph promotional doesn't make it so.  It was information about the subject and his organization, reported by a reputable source.  It wouldn't have gotten published in this manner if it was promotional.  Some sources are trivial mentions, but others at not per this and this, this, this and to call them trivial mentions is a misrepresentation.  The proportion between sources with significant coverage and trivial mentions is irrelevant here given the aforementioned sources and persistent coverage from 1982 to 2010.  Does this AfD need to remain open if we are just going to circle around the same arguments?  I, Jethrobot  drop me a line (note: not a bot!) 05:56, 3 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete, I agree with DGG's comment. MaNeMeBasat (talk) 11:38, 3 September 2012 (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.