Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Edward J. Crawford (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 delete‎__EXPECTED_UNCONNECTED_PAGE__. Liz Read! Talk! 06:48, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

Edward J. Crawford
AfDs for this article:


 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

This page was first deleted in 2019 and despite being a WP:REFBOMB this new incarnation shows no additional evidence of notability under GNG or NBIO. Coverage is in school publications; WP:TRADES publications like local business journals and magazines (and without feature-length coverage that would permit the use of trade pubs to establish notability); self-published sources; or WP:TRIVIALMENTIONs in longer lists of people. Dclemens1971 (talk) 15:57, 13 May 2024 (UTC) Relisting comment: Not eligible for Soft Deletion. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:51, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Politicians, Military, Louisiana,  and Texas.  WC  Quidditch   ☎   ✎  19:08, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Comment This article is highly promotional. I began checking the citations and only got through the first section, but a number fail validation or are not reliable sources (e.g. something he himself wrote). As it is, I cannot (yet?) find anything that would make him noteworthy. It will take work to cut the article down to the actual reliable sources, and then to ones that are significantly about him. My gut feeling is that there will not be significant sources, but it will take some time to figure that out. Lamona (talk) 05:48, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Your assessment is incorrect. The 3 places you marked the page with [verification failed] were not accurate. 2 of the sources used this article, which you need to find his photo and click on it, and then a long bio will appear which verifies the info. Next you had an issue with source 11 freemannews.tulane.edu/, it partially verified the content, but the source 12, right after verifies everything. As far as being promotional, please feel free to revise it. Most of the article was written by me, but at least one other person has added to it. I am pretty certain that I didn't write anything promotional myself. Lionsonny (talk) 06:48, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Keep Plenty of coverage exists. Here are the good sources:
 * Forthworth Inc - This article has significant coverage on him.
 * Travel Talk - Long article on him and his family
 * Hawkins Crawford - Article about his wedding and has a bio about him and his wife.
 * Forthworth Business - A good long paragraph of bio on him
 * tulane.edu - Article about his Tedx Talk. It is short, but the fact that he did a Ted talk should help with notability.
 * Book: In the Warlords' Shadow - This book contains a few paragraphs of info on him.
 * Voyage Dallas: This is an interview, but there is 3 paragraphs of intro about him that is not an interview, hence it should count towards notability.
 * texas.gov - A long paragraph of bio on him
 * Peace Corps Connect - Click on his image and you will see a long bio on him.

Based on all the above, significant coverage exists and he meets notability guidelines. Lionsonny (talk) 06:21, 24 May 2024 (UTC)


 * @Lionsonny None of these sources is valid for establishing notability:
 * Fort Worth Inc is a WP:TRADES magazine, and only lengthy, in-depth features (not short news items like this one) from trade publications can be used to establish notability.
 * The "Travel Talk" article appears to be from a magazine called "University Park Life," which appears to be a real estate promotional product. (See example: https://issuu.com/daveperry-millerrealestate/docs/hea_carla_uplife_for_issuu). Furthermore, the PDF is hosted on the subject's own website! There is no way this can meet the standard of reliable and independent.
 * The wedding announcement can be used to verify facts but not to establish notability, since wedding announcements are generally supplied or based on data supplied by the couple and thus not independent.
 * Fort Worth Business - same trade publication issue noted above.
 * Tulane - source is not independent as it is his alma mater, plus it is a brief mention, not WP:SIGCOV
 * The book I cannot view, but if it's only a few paragraphs in a full book, that's unlikely to be considered significant coverage.
 * Voyage Dallas is an WP:INTERVIEW and thus a WP:PRIMARYSOURCE and ineligible to count toward notability.
 * Texas.gov is a WP:PRESSRELEASE and thus a primary source.
 * The Peace Corps site is a short official bio, not a long one, but either way not an independent or secondary source.
 * As I said when nominating, this is a WP:REFBOMB trying to create an illusion of notability through sheer volume of sources, but as I show here, none of them passes the bar of notability. Dclemens1971 (talk) 12:55, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

Relisting comment: The references presented by Lionsonny for GNG purposes have been disputed by two editors, and endorsed by another. Relisting for further analysis of these sources by other editors. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 03:23, 28 May 2024 (UTC) Relisting comment: Final relist, same comment as Daniel. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 04:25, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm going with Delete - due to lack of independent sources. The book has two nice paragraphs about him, but that is not enough to establish notability. The remainder are mainly local fluff pieces. The TedX talk does not establish notability - there have been hundreds/thousands of them and "TedX" is now a franchise. I find short bios that cannot be determined to be independent and a bunch of name checks. Although there are sources that state facts that are in the article, either they are not independent or are not sufficiently reliable. This person has done some interesting things so if a few reliable sources write significant and independent works about him, he could have a presence here. Lamona (talk) 16:31, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Keep. based on presented citations above by Lionsonny, this person will meet WP:GNG and WP:BIO. In particular, Forthworth Inc, Forthworth Business, Book: In the Warlords' Shadow, Peace Corps Connect and Voyage Dallas have good amount of coverage on him. Hkkingg (talk) 18:58, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete - Seems like every tiny random irrelevant source has been mentioned in this AfD conveniently, so I can resoundingly vote delete based on the lack of good quality coverage that goes deeper than short profiles/announcements. BrigadierG (talk) 08:48, 5 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Delete per Dclemens1971. Not enough WP:SIGCOV to establish notability, and most sources that don't fall under WP:TRIVIALMENTION are either less-reliable or primary sources. B3251 (talk) 04:39, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Delete. I agree with the source analysis by Dclemens1971. This is an enormous amount of trivia accumulated to synthesize an apparently cited biography of a relatively unknown living person. Right out of one's own scrapbook, perhaps. I generally feel some sympathy for the subject; sometimes it's a bad idea to have article about oneself. But in the case of this subject, I have no particular sympathy, because five years apart, two separate new contributors decided to create largely the same page about the same subject, using many of the same sources. And both of the pages came up for deletion. What a shock it was to discover the last such page creator, TheCarFanatic was blocked for likely covert advertising! This might bear some further examination. BusterD (talk) 17:14, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Note: For those who think it's completely risk-free to try create a Wikipedia article about a living someone (perhaps as a business card), these two deletion procedures will be available for anyone to find later when someone inevitably DOES attempt to search for this namespace. Readers of the future may make their own judgements when they see it deleted twice, and no reputation-cleaning firm (including national security agencies) can get the AfDs deleted, so the stain is set, so to speak. BusterD (talk) 18:01, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I mean, is it observable that this article was moved to mainspace a few days after its creator's account became autoconfirmed and that since this page creation the account has made only a handful of unrelated edits? But the low quality of the sourcing toward notability standards is what's driving the discussion. Dclemens1971 (talk) 10:03, 5 June 2024 (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.