Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Ardis Cawthon


 * 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. Much like other articles by the original author (indef blocked since 2015)... looks good but ultimately insubstantial.  Catfish  Jim  and the soapdish  09:52, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

John Ardis Cawthon

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Despite the depth, length, and apparent sourcing of the article it doesn't appear that the subject meets notability standards. Cawthon appears to have been a tenured professor at Louisiana Tech University who specialized in the history of Northern Louisiana. Sources used to support this article include unlinked, and in some cases untitled, local newspaper articles (sources:8, 10, and 24); basic records, such as death and cemetery internment records (1 & 11); Notes from the article's since-banned creator that are original research or that simply explain that sources cannot be found (2, 13, & 18); local newspaper obituaries for people other than the subject (6, 7,   9, 21); Cawthon's entrie in local history journals, some of which are not linked (14 &16); a college yearbook (12, used twice); a footnote in some else's book (15); a passing reference to a work of his in a work published on a small town's website (19); a link to the LSU Archives and collections page, which has no mention of Cawthon (20); An article in the LA Tech Alumni magazine about his wife receiving a distinguished service award from the university (22); permanent dead links (23 & 26), one to a list of college alumni and another to the subject and his wife's papers; and a link simply proving that the subject's daughter was a professor at the University of Texas-Arlington (27). While it's possible that Cawthon could meet notability standards it simply isn't established by the sources used, I conducted a further search and didn't find anything that would support passing WP:GNG. GPL93 (talk) 21:12, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 21:24, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 21:25, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 21:26, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 21:27, 5 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment The page on Eleanor is a bit misleading, I think she may have been more encyclopedic than her husband. In particular, Eleanor was president of the Arkansas Federation of Business and Professional Women and vice-president of the American Association of University Women]. Also, she was national president of the College Placement Council (now National Association of Colleges and Employers) in the early 1970s. Later in the 1970s, she was a Dean of Student Services at Louisiana Tech (all positions according to articles on newspapers.com) while her husband was an academic with a focus on local history. His focus on local history was likely what led to the creation of his article (article creator Billy Hathorn focused on local history of Arkansas and Texas). Eleanor had a more outward focused career, serving in leadership role of somewhat significant national organizations. I'd support keeping an article on Eleanor, but am not sure how to split these. I would not !vote on the current article on John. Is a rename with excise of the material on John a possible outcome? If so, I would be happy to expand the article on Eleanor with the information I noted. Smmurphy(Talk) 22:06, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
 * @Smmurphy I agree that Eleanor has a better chance of meeting notability standards based on her qualifications, but given the current sourcing used it's probably best to WP:TNT and start a new article on her from scratch using sources that actually establish notability instead of obituaries, faculty websites, and alumni magazine articles. Best, GPL93 (talk) 15:45, 6 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep per above discussion. The closing admin can move, merge, split, or redirect as needed. Bearian (talk) 23:33, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
 * /closing admin - I'm refraining from voting or editing the page under the assumption that the page can be deleted and the page on Eleanor written from scratch (to avoid attribution issues post deletion) after. I'm not sure if this is optimal behavior under WP:CWW, but my feeling is that trying to change the main subject of the article during an AfD is not enjoyable and worsens the AfD discussion. If the consensus were that an article on Eleanor should be written using this current article as a start point, we could move the article (with or without redirect) to draft or (my?) userspace and do it that way. In other words, I plan to write/expand an article on Eleanor after this decision regardless of the outcome of this AfD (unless the AfD outcome were that I definitely shouldn't). Smmurphy(Talk) 19:25, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
 * That's why I think it's best the article be deleted and then a separate article be submitted on Eleanor. While I think that there is a chance she meets GNG, none of the sourcing for even that part of the current article really establishes it so you'd more or less have to begin the article from the beginning anyway. Best, GPL93 (talk) 20:11, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete then. Bearian (talk) 00:46, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete -- I do not see much notable in either bio. A series of articles on graveyards, probably listing tombstones is hardly notable, mere local history.  Her position as dean and national president might just make the wife notable, but I am far from sure.  Peterkingiron (talk) 16:57, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment A search of Newspapers.com shows articles about John Ardis Cawthon and his work in 6 newspapers in Louisiana and Texas. Although many of the sources currently included in the article are not reliable (or not relevant), I note that there is a 3 page biography in North Louisiana History. Elenora Albrecht Cawthon should probably not be included in her husband's article - as other editors have noted, there are additional sources for her too. I don't see why the present article needs to be deleted in order to improve the sourcing - why not delete the unreliable sources and the irrelevant content, and add reliable new sources? I will try to do that for John, and then assess his notability. And I believe that there are ways of separating articles into two that maintain the editing history, which could be done for Elenora Albrecht Cawthon. RebeccaGreen (talk) 16:31, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Xymmax So let it be written   So let it be done  03:51, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment I have started editing and adding references - there is a lot more to do. RebeccaGreen (talk) 10:36, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment I removed the second biography from this article. We simply don't do that and it at least the third time I've seen this tone in a Billy Hathorn article....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 19:51, 18 March 2019 (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.