Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eugene P. Watson


 * 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. I am tagging the article with Nofootnote to request that the current references be changed to inline citations. -- Black Falcon (Talk) 20:51, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Eugene P. Watson

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Biography does not seem to merit Wikipedia entry. Fresh 19:23, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

"Eugene Payne Watson", A Dictionary of Louisiana Biography Vol. 2 (1988), p. 828

Thus far, no one in A Dictionary of Louisiana Biography has been rejected by Wikipedia.

Billy Hathorn 21:44, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Does not seem to? Huh?  KP Botany 22:40, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment What has this person done to merit an entry? Per WP:BIO, "Creative professionals: scientists, academics, economists, professors, authors, editors, journalists, filmmakers, photographers, artists, architects, engineers, and other creative professionals. The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by their peers or successors. The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory or technique. The person has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work, which has been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews. The person's work either (a) has been displayed in a significant exhibition or as a monument (b) has won significant critical attention, or (c) is represented within the permanent collection of a significant gallery or museum of more than local significance."  Where is that in this article?--Fresh 00:38, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment That's not why you nominated it. Here, reread your nomination.  You couldn't decide whether or not it didn't meet these when you nominated it, you nominated it because it "didn't seem to merit Wikipedia entry."  Please, at least read your own posts.  KP Botany 02:03, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment'I didn't think I needed to specifcially state which of the criteria it didn't meet - to me, it was an obvious entry that did not belong. Not sure you need to bring the attitude - I nominated to delete because I think this is a very weak entry that is not properly sourced, and even if it were, the individual does not merit an entry.--Fresh 05:00, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Oh, good grief--you don't have to state the criteria for deletion? Now I've heard everything.  And I have attitude! Stunning! Awesome!  We're debating not on criteria, but on what you think.  KP Botany 19:00, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory or technique. It's in the first paragraph: "He fought to gain greater academic recognition of librarians. In 1950, Watson founded Alpha Beta Alpha, the first coeducational undergraduate library science fraternity in the United States. The fraternity held its first biennial convention on the NSU campus in 1952. At the time of Watson's death, the fraternity had twenty-nine chapters nationally."

Clearly meets academic notability. Billy Hathorn 01:31, 5 June 2007 (UTC) The argument from its listing in Dict. Louisiana Bibliog. is absurd, since we dont know who else it lists.
 * Comment Just did a Google search for "Alpha Beta Alpha", which returned no results, and there is no related page within Wikipedia. As such, I do not feel this meets academic notability as the organization does not continue.  Additionally, with no in-line sources, I don't know how to verify if it's even true.--Fresh 01:35, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment This article is Eugene P. Watson not Alpha Beta Alpha. KP Botany 02:03, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment I agree, but if the fact that he started Alpha Beta Alpha is the only reason he would be notible, then I think it is reasonable that we would discuss how notiable that organization is. This arguement would seem to allow me to start my own organization and become notable enough for a Wikipedia entry because of it.--Fresh 05:00, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep if i find some additional real sources in the specialized references that the ed. did not think to examine. First, he's not really notable as a scholar. With respect to his being a university librarian, I'd say the head of one of the pre-eminent university libraries would be notable, because there will be discussions of the library & the librarian in professional journals, but I am not going to assume this of Northwestern State Louisiana, which is not actually a university but a 4 year college. The founder of a minor fraternity is not ipso facto notable; there are very few undergraduate library science programs in the first place, as compared to graduate ones. (Alpha Beta Alpha is now in WP--it was started in the course of this discussion. )
 * I tend to strongly doubt the notability of people whose article lists their membership in the K of C & the Rotary Club as elements of notability. Even if someone is notable otherwise, the inclusion of this, along with their elementary school and their high school and the bio of their siblings, indicates a lack of sophistication is writing historical bios that tends to make one look skeptically on the whole thing. I have been trying to convince the author that bios like this would be less likely to be nom,. for deletion if they were ! or 2 paragraphs long--its sort of like articles on commercial firms that are 90% puffery, so any actual notability goes unnoticed. DGG 03:19, 5 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment Poorly written is not a reason to delete, there are tags right and left for this--tag it properly if it needs rewritten. This was done for Rock climbing --it was nominated for deletion because it was poorly written and unreferenced--this is NOT what AfD is for.  That said, the author probably has a COI, and, most COI articles get nominated for deletion because they're pure unadulterated crap--you couldn't pay me enough to write my own biography after looking at the results of this endeavour on Wikipedia.  And COI authors can never see how poorly written their article is because that's the only thing they've done on Wikipedia, write one poorly written, poorly sourced COI-laden article, so you're probably not going to convince the author of anything.  KP Botany 19:00, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment. I don't think anyone has suggested that it being poorly written is reason for deletion.  If it is deleted, the reason would be that the references provided in the article fail to establish the subject's notability per WP:BIO. DGG is offering the point about it being poorly written simply as an aside because, in fact, this article's author is definitely not a one-article, WP:COI contributor.  He is, in fact, a quite prolific writer of biographical articles on Wikipedia.  Unfortunately, though, as can be seen on his talk page, a great many of the subjects whom he has chosen to profile have not been actually notable, and thus dozens of his articles have found their way to AfD over the past few months, with the consensus usually being to delete.  He's voiced some displeasure and personal offense over this, so DGG is simply pointing that he's been trying to offer suggestions and help to the author as to how to avoid continuing that same pattern.  Mwelch 20:42, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Unfortunately nominating his articles for deletion because they don't seem to merit an entry isn't going to get the point across--it's just going to make it seem as if he was in the right in the first place by creating the article. After all, if someone else can't even decide if it should be deleted, but takes the time to nominate it, how can the author know it shouldn't have been created in the first place?  KP Botany 20:51, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Really? Shouldn't the author creating a page review WP:BIO as well to ensure they are entering someone who would pass the test?  Especially someone as prolific as Billy Hathorn?  At this point, you are arguing what I entered to delete the article, not the merits of the article actually being discussed.--Fresh 21:02, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, uh, that's what you did. The article has a talk page Talk:Eugene P. Watson, a rather nice place to discuss an article.  Underutilized, but still, a good place to start.  KP Botany 21:05, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment. Oh, I guess I'd agree with your basic point about the phrasing "doesn't seem to" in the nomination.  I'm not sure I think it's quite as big a deal as you do, since I don't have much trouble assuming good faith and thus believing the nominator when he says that what he meant by that was that "I've read WP:BIO and in my opinion, this guy doesn't meet it" or something like that. Obviously, I cannot read his mind to make certain, but it seems reasonable to me that his overly concise wording in the nomination could have been an honest mistake.  But that said, yes, I'll agree with your underlying point that the nomination should have been done with better and more precise deletion criteria language than "doesn't seem to merit an entry".  Even granting that the nomination itself was imperfect, though, to me the larger issue is that, as I say, the article as it stands fails to provide references that establish Mr. Watson's notability per WP:BIO. So unless DGG or someone else comes up with better references, I'd still have to keep my vote at "delete". Mwelch 21:15, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment However, this falls back to the same old thing on Wikipedia: either the references exist on the web or they don't exist. Library research for references takes some time, that's why putting a note on the article's talk page and tagging it for missing references is a better start than nominating it for deletion.  And, just because you can't find the information on the Internet, doesn't mean the person isn't notable, or that they are.  There are clear criteria laid out for deletions, and especially for failure to assert notability, for non-notable topics, and similar. What really would it have taken to have made a thoughtful nomination, another minute?  And how much time would it have saved, not to even mention discussing the issue with me?  What is the race for deletion that's so important that articles like Rock climbing and Society for Creative Anachronism get nominated for deletion, that editors delete the assertion of notability and trivial information, then nominate it for deletion because the subject isn't notable?  Is there something powerful about nominating articles for deletion that I'm missing?  There's a lot of crap on Wikipedia that needs deleting, enough that no time should be spent discussing articles that the nominator isn't nominating for deletion.  KP Botany 21:31, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment. Well again, I don't think that anyone is claiming that references that aren't on the 'Net must not exist.  Of course there are other references and of course researching them takes time.  I'm not denying that, and I don't think anyone else is, either.  But the "burden of proof" in providing references lies with the article creator and/or those who wish to keep the content.  I freely acknowledge that there may indeed be such non-Internet references about Mr. Watson.  So if they are produced, I will not be stubborn, and I will change my vote accordingly and be happy to do so. In the absence of such explicit references, though, WP:BIO is the guideline we use as to whether the subject can be expected to ultimately prove notable.  And in my opinion, Mr. Watson does not meet those guidelines.  Might a  tag been placed on the article prior to an AfD nomination?  Indeed, that might be a good way to go first.  I usually do so before I nominate for deletion.  However, I'll confess that in the case of this author, I am not always quite so diligent, since from my past attempts with him, I feel pretty confident that his response to such a tag is not going to be actually go out and research and provide better references, but rather to either ignore the tag altogether or to reply to it by insisting that the article's references are fine as they are.  With that background in mind, I have at times just gone straight to AfD with this author's article rather than bother with the non-notable tag first.  I probably should be more procedural about it regardless of my knowledge of the author's patterns, but since I have to admit that I haven't always been so, I can't really throw stones at this nominator over the issue either. As for the rest of the above, I hope I haven't given the impression I would ever defend such a practice as deleting the assertion of notability and then nominating AfD.  I agree with you that that's pretty awful.  I just don't see that that occurring on that article is germane to my vote on this article.  And with regard to how this nomination could have been better, as I note above, I agree with you and do not defend the wording of the original nomination here (beyond stating that I think it likely it was an honest mistake and don't see any reason to put it in the same category as something as nefarious as deleting the assertion of notability from an article and then nominating based on it failing to assert). I freely acknowledge that the path taken to get to this point was imperfect; but now that we are here, I still don't see that this article, with the references currently provided, meets WP:BIO.  Mwelch 22:09, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment The Alpha Beta Alpha is poorly sourced as well. One source points to a Kutztown library page that doesnt seem to have any meaning, and the other is to Mr. Watson's biography, so I don't consider either a reliable source for notability purposes (see my comment above).--Fresh 05:00, 5 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete per the reasons outlined by DGG, which is rather ironic considering that DGG is voting to keep at this point. If DGG indeed finds those anticipated additional sources, I'll reconsider, of course.  Either way, I could not agree more with DGG's sentiments with regard these articles in general.  Mwelch 07:40, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions.   -- John Vandenberg 20:59, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Weak keep - the fact that his university have renamed their library for him suggests to me that they think he is notable. Inclusion in a state biographical dictionary similarly points ot notability.  It is unfortunate that no more is said about what he published, which might have established his notability.  Peterkingiron 22:23, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep passes wp:bio. should have been cleanup, not afd, published materials clearly exist.--Buridan 10:39, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Providing sources can be provided, I'd say Keep this time - I assume that when the library was renamed there would have been coverage in the local press, which presumably Billy can dig out —  irides centi   (talk to me!)  14:25, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per discussion of Alpha Beta Alpha, above, which is his only real claim to notability. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 05:05, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Weak keep. To me there are two claims for notability: founding the fraternity, and having the library named after him. The article serves an encyclopedic purpose in that it seems plausible to me that users of the library might look him up in WP to find out who their library was named for. —David Eppstein 19:11, 10 June 2007 (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.