Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Leslie R. Mitchell


 * 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. For now. But WP:NPASR should the RFC on the award conclude that receiving it does not satisfy WP:ANYBIO. T. Canens (talk) 11:09, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Leslie R. Mitchell

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

No independent coverage. Fails WP:BASIC, WP:GNG and WP:BIO. Much like the deletions of these other scouting organization personel -- HighKing ++ 15:55, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Strong keep - meets WP:ANYBIO per being a recipient of the Bronze Wolf Award--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 15:59, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
 * And it populates its own Google search when you type in Leslie Mitchell JOTA. You haven't done your homework.  are independent non=Scouting references.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 17:58, 14 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Strong keep - also meets WP:ANYBIO .2 per being founder of a major world wide Amateur Radio event. --Egel Reaction? 21:17, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep - Meets point 1 of WP:ANYBIO having been awarded the Bronze Wolf Award, and point 2 having created a worldwide annual Scouting event using amateur radio. — Jkudlick • t • c • s 10:47, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep per Kintetsubuffalo. --evrik (talk) 16:57, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment I get it - this guy was a great scout and awarded their highest honour and a great amateur radio enthusiast, but can you provide references that pass the criteria in WP:BASIC? The references provided by Evet are clubs or blogs for amateur radio and the others in the article are from the scouting movement. People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other and independent of the subject? The references provided to date fail this test or fail the criteria in WP:RS. You say that he was awarded the Bronze Wolf Award but this is awarded by the scouts so its still a circular reference. That's a bit like expecting every IBM Fellow to have their own article for example - it may be prestigious and difficult to get but its still not really an "external" award and does not imply that the person is notable and merits an article. -- HighKing ++ 18:18, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep. Over the years I have seen serious mention of JOTA in newspapers, but I do not have the time to find them. The amateur radio links can be independent of the subject, if they are published by organisations that do not run JOTA and have no links to running JOTA except that both use radios. -- Bduke   (Discussion)  19:48, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions.  -- HighKing ++ 18:26, 15 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Weak delete, or Redirect to Jamboree-on-the-Air. Considering this guy's passing went almost unnoticed by the newspapers and the only supporting evidence is from amateur radio/scouts websites, we don't have any strong indications of widescale notability. A Scouts Movement award isn't sufficient proof either. I'm open to seeing evidence of pre-internet news coverage, considering his long life. Sionk (talk) 23:12, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep per Kintetsubuffalo, Bronze Wolf awardees are notable.Naraht (talk) 23:24, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment I note that a few editors here state that Bronze Wolf awardees are notable but saying something doesn't make it so. What we need are references that enable this topic to pass WP:BASIC. -- HighKing ++ 19:37, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
 * 7/2 thus far is a little more than "a few"-unless on your planet, Trump got "a few" more electoral votes than Clinton. I can see where that, plus now three independent sources, would make it difficult to continue making your argument. Have a nice big slice of "saying something doesn't make it so." --Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 10:17, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank goodness this process isn't a simple count of !votes. So far, nobody has argued against the failure of WP:BASIC. -- HighKing ++ 13:51, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
 * You really should get that checked. Both and  have actually made and bolstered that argument. Also, in English, we say "Thank goodness". Now what those votes should tell you is that your argument in this situation isn't very convincing, and those other editors, to include an admin mind you, can also effectively use Wikipedia policies. --Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 14:12, 18 December 2016 (UTC)


 * The argument is given above - "Meets point 1 of WP:ANYBIO" - "The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor". The Bronze Wolf Award is well-known and significant. It is noticed outside of Scouting. Being an internal award does not prevent it from meeting this criteria. Nevertheless, I would like to see sources that show an individual recipient of the award has been noticed. I think that is clear here. However, some other cases where articles on recipients have come to AfD, it was not clear but the sources might not be in English. I feel sure that this notice of someone receiving the award will be easy to find if the recipient lives in the USA or UK. We may be in danger of having articles on recipients just because they live in some countries, while recipients who live in other countries do not have articles. -- Bduke   (Discussion)  21:04, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep Jamboree on the Air was a notable event and the as the initiator of the event, the article subject is notable. — btphelps (talk to me) (what I've done) 04:56, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I have removed the tags from Bronze Wolf Award as there are now _THREE_ independent sources, thanks for your legwork, !--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 10:17, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Eh ... no, there's not "_THREE_ *independent* sources" to use your exclaimatory formatting. Read WP:RS. FYI, there are 7 sources in that article. Only one, the book by Tara Atterberry, could be considered as independent - and the book is a series of books published by Gale Research published every 5 years or so and it mentions the award in passing. The rest are directly associated with the Scouts. If the Bronze Wolf award is a significant national or international award, I expect to find a lot of independent sources - I find nothing that satisfies WP:RS. Perhaps you can help and find some? -- HighKing ++ 13:51, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Hahahaha-thank you for that, I needed a laugh. The Chiangmai Mail is in no way associated with Scouting, and the LDS are a church. Also, in English, we say "exclamatory". --Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 14:12, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I responded on the appropriate Bronze Wolf Talk page about those sources (hint: they are not independent secondary reliable sources). -- HighKing ++ 18:44, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Boo-yah! http://www.gov.ph/1993/03/08/speech-of-president-ramos-on-the-scout-bronze-wolf-award/ The Government of the Philippines is as independent as you can get. Put it to bed .--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 13:56, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Please refrain from posting off-topic here. The correct place for those references is at the Bronze Wolf Talk page and I've responded there. -- HighKing ++ 17:41, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Off topic? Pull your head out-you're the one who brought it up! --Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 11:43, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions.  -- HighKing ++ 19:17, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions.  -- HighKing ++ 19:17, 18 December 2016 (UTC)


 * The heart of the concern about this article (and related ones) is the notability of the Bronze Wolf Award. Since the award was created in 1935, a few million Scouters from dozens of countries around the world have been active in that organization, and of that number, less than 400 have been recognized with this award. Within this world wide community composed of civic organizations, governments, churches, schools, and others, when an individual receives the Bronze Wolf Award, it is indeed noteworthy. While it is a challenge to find strong secondary or tertiary sources, the recipient is notable by the distinction of having received this award for many years of service to their community through their support of Scouting.
 * Let's not dispute each Bronze Wolf recipient one by one. Take this argument for deletion to the award itself if necessary. — btphelps (talk to me) (what I've done) 18:10, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
 * On the contrary, the subject is whether Leslie R. Mitchell meets WP:GNG and the discussion about the award should take place elsewhere. No-one has given any justification for "strong" keep, other than perhaps their bias as members of WikiProject Scouting. Sionk (talk) 19:42, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
 * See my point about IBM fellows above. Without "external" and independent third party verification, your argument is circular. The Bronze Wolf award is awarded by the Scouting organization and the only sources are related to reports on scouting events and therefore the "importance" of the award is inherited from the Scouts and internal to the Scouts. Also, Sionk's point still holds. This AfD is about Mr. Mitchell and the article fails WP:BASIC. We need independent third party sources. -- HighKing ++ 13:33, 21 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Strong keep. The Bronze Wolf is a major award by a major international organisation. Secondary sources can be difficult to find, because its recipients tend not to be publicity hounds. I recently wrote an article about a Silver Wolf - and the only source I could find was the local newspaper. Nevertheless, I had no doubt at all that he sailed through WP:GNG with colours flying. (Declaration: onetime Senior Scout, but no connection with Scouting for over 50 years.) Narky Blert (talk) 22:14, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I would argue that the article on P. B. Nevill also fails WP:BASIC (all of the sources are Scouting sources) and it is difficult to see why Mr. Nevill is notable outside of the scouting movement. It may be concluded that the recipients of Wolf awards are automatically notable. -- HighKing ++ 13:33, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Speaking of "off-topic" and WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, P. B. Nevill was OBE-you are really scrounging, aren't you? --Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 11:43, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I express no comment on P. B. Nevill, who is not the subject of this AfD. I edited that article only for everyday reasons - i.e. spacing initials per WP:MOS, and adding it to an existing category. Please justify your introduction of P. B. Nevill into this discussion. IMO it's WP:OFFTOPIC. Narky Blert (talk) 01:14, 25 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't believe it is off-topic in the slightest and it is probably closer to the truth that some editors are uncomfortable at the thoughts of any added scrutiny of some of the articles that they've created/editted. You stated that you recently wrote an article about a recipient of a Silver Wolf award and that the *only* source you could find was the local newspaper but that nonetheless you had no doubt *at all* that he sailed through WP:GNG. The implication was that the topic of your recent article was notable due to their being a recipient of the Silver Wolf award (even though you could only find a single source from a local newpaper). It was fully justifiable for any editor to challenge this assertion and I looked up your editing history to find the article (I was curious as to why you did not include a link to the article). Interesting that your recently wrote an article now becomes spacing initials, that your sole purpose of editing the article was to insert a Category of "Recipients of the Silver Wolf Award", and that kintetsubuffalo was the very next editor of the article. If nothing else, it shows the paucity of content for many of the "Wolf" recipient articles and it highlights that the closing admin here will need to make a decision on whether being a recipient of a Wolf award meets the criteria in ANYBIO. If not, other articles will come under increased scrutiny.  -- HighKing ++ 12:09, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
 * "Interesting that your recently wrote an article now becomes spacing initials." Different articles, that's why. Please read what I actually wrote in this AfD; please do not put words into my mouth. Narky Blert (talk) 00:27, 3 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment It appears that the argument put forward is that Mr. Mitchell is notable *because* he received a Bronze Wolf award. Criteria 1 from WP:ANYBIO states The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor, or has been nominated for one several times. I would argue that the Wolf awards cannot be regarded as well-known there are apparently no independent intellectually-seperate references that state that a Wolf award is a significant award or honour. Other will disagree and state that the award is the highest award that can be given by a notable international organisation. It appears that whoever closes this AfD may well have to consider this argument and make a decision. -- HighKing ++ 13:33, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
 * In fact there are intellectually-separate references, and those have been added to the award article.
 * I found this strange obit for him, also an intellectually-separate reference. --Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 11:36, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Trying to appear superior by name-calling and correcting spelling mistakes? Most editors find it has the opposite effect. -- HighKing ++ 15:38, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Are you serious?! Did you read it? That is a legal notice published to invite claims to his estate. Sionk (talk) 15:17, 22 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Uncertain. To test the notability of the recipients of the awards, I found an instance where there was essentially nothing else claimed, and I just listed it for discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robbert Hartog.  DGG ( talk ) 22:20, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Good idea. -- HighKing ++ 14:47, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Relisting because most Keep votes are assuming that the subject is notable due to being a recipient of an award which is mentioned nowhere in WP notability guidelines Black Kite (talk) 00:34, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep or Redirect to Jamboree-on-the-Air on the basis of a news archive search on Proquest, where his Leslie + Mitchell + Jamboree brings up  old feature coverage of him that validates the article, such as like (Scouts tune in all over world: Calling all Scouts!, Bennett, Harold F. The Christian Science Monitor  [Boston, Mass] 16 Sep 1965: 17. ).E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:33, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Black Kite (talk) 00:34, 27 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep, but not a particularly strong one. There probably should be a broader discussion and RfC on whether the award itself is qualifying, because as of right now, there is no broad consensus that it is. Furthermore, it is a consensus that likely auto-keeps 350+ articles and growing, or near-auto noms them depending on their quality.


 * However, what the award does do is lend credence to the individual's actual central claim to notability, which is founding the event and popularizing amateur radio among scouts. Nontheless, to those who are committed to this article, I would strongly recommend improving it in the long term, or you may likely face a second nomination, and one with a bit stronger rationale, especially if the broader consensus is to give greater scrutiny to the articles for people whose notability rests, in small or large part, on receipt of the award.  Timothy Joseph Wood  14:26, 27 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep The scope and breadth of the sources provided support the claim of notability. Alansohn (talk) 15:49, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I just received a letter from his daughter stating "not really aware of any secondary sources of the kind Wikipedia favours as evidence of notability. I do have some newspaper clippings at home, though, which may allow me to add a few more sources to the reference list over the next few days.  Unfortunately, Dad was far too modest to celebrate his own achievement, which means that it attracted less notice than it might have done!  My mother and I were very touched by the messages from all over the world which we received when he died." which backs up the arguments made by  and . BASED ON THIS, I ASK ANY CLOSING ADMIN FOR MORE TIME--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 14:28, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: OK, so this was NAC closed on the basis that the award was notable but that was clearly wrong. I have voided that close. The keep side are arguing without a policy basis that the award is notable but there appears no dispute that the article is not adequately sources and that this fails GNG. Notability through an SNG is supposed to be a convenient short cut for subjects likely to meet the GNG. In this case, this appears not to be the case. Please can we have some further discussion. Spartaz Humbug! 07:27, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz Humbug! 07:27, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
 * For clarity-the NAC close was clearly wrong. The award is notable per WP:GNG and the deletes have confirmed this as well. "The keep side are arguing without a policy basis" is a biased assessment-the "keep side" are arguing per points #1 and #2 of WP:ANYBIO, which is clearly policy-based. There is no dispute that the article was not adequately sourced, that situation has changed since the debate began and is being rectified. So, thanks for the reopen, but no thanks for the incorrect summary.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 12:37, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
 * As a point of order, whether the award is notable is not the same as saying that everyone who received the award is notable. The Army Service Ribbon is notable, but the vast and overwhelming majority of people who receive it are not. (Otherwise someone please go ahead and write my article already.) Timothy Joseph Wood  16:14, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
 * That comparison is as stupid as it is meaningless to this discussion. "The Army Service Ribbon is awarded to members of the Army, Army Reserve, and Army National Guard for successful completion of initial-entry training". There are 1,015,000 active military in that branch with the thing, over the course of 36 years that will have been an astounding number. I'm sure McDonald's awards a pin when you finish training, too. Whereas the Bronze Wolf Award "is only "given to people that have provided a lifetime (my emphasis) of selfless and voluntary service to the upliftment and service of youth and country."" and "limited (again my emphasis) to "approximately one award for each 2,000,000 members worldwide"" meaning that even at capacity only 14 may be awarded for 28,000,000 Scouts worldwide. So, no, not an apt comparison in any way.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 05:45, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
 * What the comparison illustrates is that the notability of an award, and the notability conferred by the award are separate issues. Timothy Joseph Wood  11:41, 14 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment. The key point here seems to be whether receiving a Bronze Wolf award inherently confers notabilty (in the Wikipedia sense of the word) on the recipient.  That question is being debated in an RfC at Talk:Bronze Wolf Award, with the outcome not yet apparent.  Until that RfC is settled, it seems to me that this AfD can't really be adjudicated.  -- RoySmith (talk) 03:42, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Good point, but this AfD will have run a month tomorrow. The RfC could run another month or more. At the ANI for the NAC close, it was repeated several times that it looked like no other way to close but keep, even reasons aside from the award (just reread it myself). Since we do now have an RfC at Talk:Bronze Wolf Award, this reopen is for formal admin closure, and not meant to be redundant to that RfC. ANYBIO will come into play the African ones, and as says, a lot of _those_ cases boil down to little being accessible in English and on the net. What surprised me was that three of the African names already had articles and it was just up to me to plug in or remove an initial to find them. This AfD now involves not just ANYBIO but other, larger GNG points he passes. My view is this should run to the end of its present cycle, Thursday January 19, 2017, closed by an uninvolved, respected admin, and let the RfC handle further discussion to that conclusion.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 06:17, 13 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Likely meets the GNG (can't see the CSM article from home). Also meets the BIO SNG due to the award. keepHobit (talk) 10:51, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
 * The CSM article is behind a paywall. User:E.M.Gregory has kindly posted a summary of the contents of the article which I will paste here. By any measure, the CSM article pushes Mitchell over the line for GNG. This is a long, reported article about the Jamboree-on-the-Air, written back in an era when amateur radio was a very popular hobby. I have just re-read it, in a pdf file linked via Proquest. It broadly covers the radio aspect of that year's jamboree, Scouts in various parts of the planet participating, a Scout troop in which every boy has a radio operator license, the photo is of a Schout troop in Norway listening in on their ham radio set.  In the course of all this there is a section on Mitchell as the "originator" of the Jamboree.  it included a potted bio of his involvement with radio, his wartime service record, the 1958 jamboree where he originated the program.  It does not feature any direct quotes or, indeed, any indication that the journalist spoke with or met him.   It is, is, however, the paradigm of a WP:RS.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:16, 13 January 2017 (UTC)  -- HighKing ++ 16:03, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep I'm reluctant to even dignify this farce with a statement, but I do want my opinion on record here. If Spartaz feels that the close was invalid, he's required (in theory, of course; "no big deal" my ass) to take his objection up at DRV. In practice, however, he's not "required" to do anything; he's an administrator, and therefore, infallible. Compounding the felony of illegitimately "voiding" the "keep" close, is his not-so-thinly veiled vote for deletion in his "relist" statement. Joefromrandb (talk) 22:47, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Please relax. Those of us who voted keep asked for the invalid close to be reopened, as we're trying to build/come to a consensus as to the notability-granting (or lack thereof) of the Bronze Wolf Award. Spartaz' reopen assessment statement was incorrect (and biased for an admin, as you say), but his reopen itself was at our request. It'll all come out in the wash.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 13:09, 18 January 2017 (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.