Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fred J. Strain


 * 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. Stifle (talk) 14:10, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Fred J. Strain

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

This person is not notable as required by Notability (people) or MILPEOPLE. This looks like a geneology project turned into a Wikipedia article. ALXVA (talk) 19:21, 14 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete- I found his life interesting, but unfortunately NN.  If Shelby, NE were a larger town, being mayor may have qualified, but population 690 doesn't do it. -PlainSight (talk) 20:41, 14 April 2010 (UTC)


 * KEEP -- HOLD ON -- DON'T DELETE --
 * GUIDELINE: A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject. (taken from BIO). Strain was chosen by his peers as a "notable Nebraskan" twice:  once by the Nebraskana Society and once by the Nebraska Press Association (journalists and publishers) -- each publication devoted a specific article entry to him.  That meets the above guideline.  Shouldn't that count for some kind of "notability" ????  Who are we to now say, at this historical distance, that he is not note worthy ???  Do you really have first hand knowledge?  Shouldn't historical sources be left to speak for themselves regarding notability?
 * GUIDELINE: That person A has a relationship with well-known person B, such as being their spouse or child, is not a reason for a standalone article on A (unless significant coverage can be found on A); see Relationships do not confer notability. However, person A may be included in the related article on B.  (taken from BIO). This is NOT a genealogy project.  Mentioning relatives is allowed by the above guideline.  Just because mention is made about parents and ancestry does not make it a "genealogy project."  Why is mentioning these things so offensive?  Everyone has parents and ancestors do they not?
 * I realize Shelby is small, however, it is still one of the "major" towns in Polk County, Nebraska -- it is unfair to compare it to other, more populous situations. The county only has 5,639 in population (with more than 10% of the county population living in Shelby) -- but notice that Wikipedia has both an article on Polk County and on the town of Shelby.  If the town is "notable enough" to merit an article then certainly it's influential citizens are notable as well.
 * During the time period this gentleman was a significantly influential member of both the United Spanish War Veterans and the Republican Party -- holding office in both. I have added some additional information in the community service section.  Note the citations from multiple newspapers in Lincoln, Nebraska (state capital).  If this was not noteworthy why would various newspapers in the state capital 65 miles away publish articles that mentioned him and what he was doing ?
 * I am waiting for additional resources on his life including a summary written up in a book about the history of the town. This will complete the picture.
 * I realize there are a lot of "volunteer" editors on Wikipedia -- that's great. But one who has no formal training in historiography should be a bit hesitant to make dogmatic generalizations about the import of historical information.  In addition, "editors" who have no formal training should be hesitant to make assertions in very subjective areas like "notability."  Everyone is entitled to their opinion.  But there is a difference between an informed opinion and just an opinion.   Drmissio (talk) 21:51, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Drmissio, please read WP: PLEASEDONT Rin tin tin (talk) 21:56, 21 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete - per nom. Fails WP:BIO as no WP:RS ghits obtained. --Ronbo76 (talk) 05:21, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. Being the mayor of a small town is not an inherent claim to notability, nor are any of the other things the subject did in his career. Being listed as one of 11,000 people in Who's Who in Nebraska 1940 is not significant coverage either, given that the state's population in that year was only 1.3 million. Saying that Shelby is one of the major towns in Polk County is not particularly meaningful given its population of less than 700 people; there appears to be only one incorporated town smaller than it in the county. I don't think the subject's notability has been established sufficiently to justify having a Wikipedia article about him. (Finally, all counties and census-listed places in the United States are considered inherently notable enough to have articles about them in Wikipedia, as are their counterparts in other countries, but that notability does not necessarily carry over to any particular residents of those places.) --Metropolitan90 (talk) 06:09, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
 * You fail to recognize that an article about him also appears in a 1932 publication of the Nebraskana Society which is a much smaller list. However, if you apply your same logic, then many of the biographical dictionaries are useless, including many published by the Marquis's Who's Who -- they list thousands of people as well. Drmissio (talk) 11:43, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Commenting - Drmissio, I think you might be misunderstanding what notability means for a book as indicated by your similar comemnts at Articles for deletion/Who’s Who in Nebraska‎. Even if the book is not notable enough for a Wikipedia article, that does not mean anyone necessarily thinks it is worthless or not a relaible source appropriate for use as a source on Wikipedia. But you are right, many of the biographical dictionaries are not themselves notable -- even if they are sometimes fine to use as a source. In this case, reliable or note, these sources together are not sufficient to meet WP:BIO. ALXVA (talk) 14:30, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
 * While I wouldn't call the Marquis Who's Who biographical dictionaries useless, I would say that they are not selective enough for me to be confident that someone is notable just because they are listed there. See this Forbes magazine article, which points out that (as of 1999) Who's Who in America gave twice as much space to the entry for Anita Dawn Sawyer, a junior high school teacher in Arkansas, than it gave to Diane Sawyer, the news anchor. (As an aside, I would also note that the notability of the book and the notability of the people profiled in it are two separate issues. A notable biographical dictionary could include many non-notable people, and a non-notable biographical dictionary could include many notable people.) --Metropolitan90 (talk) 14:53, 15 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:06, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:06, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:06, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: I've done some slight refactoring on this discussion to make it readable. Revert if you wish, but it was hard for me to understand the conversation at first.  bahamut0013  words deeds 16:50, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Weak delete... please note, I am only judging from the military perspective, as I lack the qualifications/interest to judge on pther aspects of his life. His military service lacks any notability (and fails WP:V as well), but makes up only a small part of this article, and I think the dissenting keep view relies on notability from his other professions. Please keep this in mind while factoring in my comment to gauge consensus; I'd say that my !vote should only be worth a tie-breaker at best.  bahamut0013  words deeds 16:50, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment A quick look at the article and several things jump out at me.
 * 1) There is enough available information in reliable sources to easily write this start class article, and with some work it could be expanded to C class or maybe B class, so it passes a major threshold test for me for inclusion. The main point of the notability guideline is to see if there is enough available information to draft an encyclopedia entry, and there clearly is for this person. Our notability guidelines should not be making judgments about the significance of the person/topic but assisting contributors to understand which subjects have enough coverage to write a comprehensive article.
 * 2) Because of when he lived, his mentions in the media may not show up in internet searches.
 * 3) People that come from places with less dense populations should not be penalized if they did significant work for their region, and he did.
 * 4) During this period in history, civic clubs and organizations were extremely important, so his participation in the community organizations needs to fully explored.


 * Given these consideration, I wish that the article would have been tagged for improvement and experienced editors could have been given the opportunity to assist in fleshing it out more before it was tagged for deletion, because I'm not sure that it is possible to do an in depth search for more sources before the Afd closes. I'm going to do a bit more digging before I decide for sure, but I'm most likely to vote keep with the idea that there is going to be improvement and expansion, OR the article would be merge into another article. Either way, deletion is not the best outcome. FloNight&#9829;&#9829;&#9829;&#9829; 18:48, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
 * WP:RS is not the problem with this article, WP:N/WP:BIO is. Like it or not, WP:N and the offspring of that policy do require us to make "judgments about the significance of the person/topic." WP:N requires that the topic be "worthy of notice." And the above comment was solicited by the article's creator, though that doesn't necessarily make the point invalid. ALXVA (talk) 19:49, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I checked before I replied and the user didn't canvass but asked me for help which is a good thing for an editor to do. Honestly ALXVA, you're misunderstanding the way the notability guidelines are suppose to work. If someone has multiple mentions in reliable sources, and it is not a single event, then the person is okay for an article. The entire point of the guideline is to filter out people that are spamming or promotional. That is clearly not the case here. We have these discussions on a case by case basis to judge whether each entry is alright for inclusion because there is enough information for a comprehensive article. FloNight&#9829;&#9829;&#9829;&#9829; 20:03, 15 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Whoa, whoa, hold on. He was in a non-notable book that's also being nominated for deletion as I type. Of course we should Delete Rin tin tin (talk) 21:51, 21 April 2010 (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.