Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Larry Woody


 * 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 no consensus, defaulting to keep. --PeaceNT (talk) 05:05, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Larry Woody

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Non-notable writer. Google pulls up nothing for his supposed book "Along For The Ride" except unrelated erotica titles and other irrelevant things. Mizu onna sango15 / 水 女 珊瑚15  04:59, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

• Keep Obviously you have never heard of NASCAR. Your ignorance pertaining to sports should not cloud your judgment or anyone else's. Authors of single poems are given Wikipedia articles. This gentleman is a famous motorsports and college sports writer and has more than earned his place here. GeoffEighinger (talk) 05:34, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Please remain civil. --Dhartung | Talk 05:56, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment- With all-do respect, it may surprise you to know I have heard of NASCAR. Furthermore, GeoffEighinger, I have nothing against motorsports, and why you assume I do simply because I nominated this article for deletion is beyond me. Authors of single poems are given Wikipedia articles, but only if the poem is notable. The fact that google returns few hits on this book of his demonstrates that it may not be of substantial notability, and the person himself does not return many google hits, so though the article claims the subject has written for NASCAR, we don't have ample reliable sources to support that. Mizu onna sango15 / 水 女 珊瑚15  19:47, 20 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Weak delete, as he seems to be a known quantity in racing circles, but there's little in Google News Archive about him (by him is a different story). It is not clear that his publications meet WP:BK, either. --Dhartung | Talk 05:56, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions.   --  Beloved  Freak  15:56, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions.   --  Beloved  Freak  15:56, 20 April 2008 (UTC)


 * If he's notable around NASCAR circles, add sourced content to the article to establish that notability. Otherwise, delete or merge into The Tennessean. --Orlady (talk) 16:24, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Why would we merge him into a newspaper article? This behavior astounds me. You didn't even understand that "out of Nashville, Tennessee" was describing something in the city. "Outside of Nashville" would have been out of town. GeoffEighinger (talk) 21:25, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Reply: We could merge his article into the article about the newspaper because his career is (apparently) associated with the newspaper. As for "out of Nashville, Tennessee" (actually, when I saw it, it was "out of Nashville, TN"), I understood perfectly well what you meant, but that kind of idiomatic expression is inappropriate for an encyclopedia. Read literally (as noted in my edit summary), its meaning is very different. --Orlady (talk) 21:50, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I see that you added several book titles to the article. That information is helpful in documenting notability. (If you want this article to be kept, you need to provide sourced information indicating that he is notable. As you probably realize, insulting other Wikipedians is not likely to help you achieve the goal of keeping the article.) I searched for the ISBN numbers and added them. Is he also the Larry Woody who wrote Schmittou: A Grand Slam in Baseball, Business, and Life? I also see that you added a long anecdote about an interaction with Tony Stewart, but that anecdote does not do anything positive for me (not only does it not help to demonstrate notability, but it does not add any useful information content to the article). Has any independent reliable source written about Larry Woody's significance as a sportswriter or his significance to NASCAR? (That would be helpful to have.) --Orlady (talk) 22:20, 20 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete. Non-notable local writer with a non-notable book. Qworty (talk) 17:47, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I would hardly call him a "local writer" since the man was friends with the late Dale Earnhardt and has been traveling the United States for the last 40+ years covering NASCAR and college sports, not to mention the fact he has received various awards as mentioned in his article. Don't get me wrong, I'm not friends with the guy (I live in Ohio) but the unwillingness to "recognize" established journalists and authors boggles my mind just because administrators or "Wiki bullies" have not heard of the person. I find it odd we base "worth" on the amount of Google hits one produces. GeoffEighinger (talk) 21:25, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
 * This is very simple. What are the reliable and independent sources that have discussed him? If they don't exist, he is accomplished, but not notable. Many accomplished people are not notable. --Dhartung | Talk 04:15, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
 * "Wiki bullies"? Look, please don't take offence just because an article you like or created has been nominated. Now you're just being uncivil. Please lighten up on the personal attacks, and realise that, as Dhartung has said, this man may not be notable enough to satisfy wikipedia standards, regardless of whether or not he has written a (non-notable) book or was friends with Dale Earnhardt. Simple as that. Mizu onna sango15 / 水 女 珊瑚15  04:51, 21 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep 3 time state sportswriter of the year, 2 halls one hall of fame, writer for a big newspaper, author of many books. I see plenty of notability. The HoF reference article backs up these assertions. More independent references should be added - I'm sure that some exist. That's a maintenance item, with templates to deal with refimprove. Royal broil  13:15, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Reply: Be that as it may— as Dhartung and I were explaining to GeoffEighinger— one is not necessarily notable just because one is accomplished. This person may have been a three time state sportswriter of the year, has a wall of fame, writes for a big newspaper, etc., but if there aren't reliable secondary sources, all these claims about him are unverifiable, which is why I propose to either delete the article or merge with The Tennessean as per Orlady. Mizu onna sango15 / 水 女 珊瑚15  03:20, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Another reply. Don't just say that more independent references should be added - go ahead and do so! Part of the purpose of AfD is to encourage article improvement so it can be saved. As of this writing, there was a total of one source that was independent of Larry Woody's writing pen. That clearly is not enough. In addition, the one named hall of fame is one of a local scope (a local college as opposed to a greater region or industry) and not cited in the article; not all writing awards are as notable as the national ones, like the Pulitzer Prize; reviews of his books would have helped in WP:V; and - changing the focus a bit - there's no mention of him in the The Tennessean Wikipedian article, which would make it an awkward target for a redirect. It is still lacking in support needed to keep the article (when you reply, note the lines just below the editing window: Content that violates any copyright will be deleted. Encyclopedic content must be verifiable. It's hard to verify if there is nothing to point to). For now, I must recommend deletion of the article. B.Wind (talk) 04:48, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

''Note: I have now added a few reliable external links to prove Woody's noteworthiness. I also noted his retirement in August, 2007 which is why he is not mentioned in The Tennessean article.'' GeoffEighinger (talk) 07:02, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
 * weak keep The new additions and sources help but I'm not so completely convinced of notability at this time. JoshuaZ (talk) 02:03, 27 April 2008 (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.