Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nicholas Hughes


 * 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, closed early per WP:SNOW. Postdlf (talk) 22:22, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Nicholas Hughes

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

The subject is not independently notable. Notability is not inherited. Wikipedia is not an obituary or memorial, and it is not mere news. Evb-wiki (talk) 14:07, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I've said it before, now I'll say it again: A good AfD can sometimes be the best thing for a borderline article. This article has much improved. Still, I think many of the notability arguments here rely too heavily on synthesis. That said, perhaps he was somewhat notable in his field. --Evb-wiki (talk) 14:21, 24 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom, it appears that the only reason his death is getting attention is because of who his parents were, and the fact that he committed suicide just like his mother Sylvia Plath, and his stepmother. Other than that, he was just an average professor.  The New York Times obituary headline is "Son of Sylvia Plath Commits Suicide," not "Nicholas Hughes Commits Suicide."  According to the Times, "Mr. Hughes had lived an academic life largely outside the public eye."  Postdlf (talk) 14:18, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment. Being in the "public eye" is not a criterion for notability of people. The criteria involve "significant coverage". While notability is not inherited, "significant coverage" may stem from who one's parents are or were. Being someone's son is not "one event" in as much as it is inappropriate to put significant biographical detail (even the quantum in this stub) in another person's article (the prescription for how to handle people notable for one event). Bongo  matic  14:48, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
 * You fail to explain why he is an appropriate standalone topic from his mother and father's articles. That the suicide of Sylvia Plath's son got significant news coverage does not establish that her son is independently notable, such that he merits his own article.  Postdlf (talk) 15:18, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
 * The syllogism is this: (A) he meets criteria for inclusion (see WP:GNG and primary criteria at WP:BIO); (B) he fails to meet the criteria for inclusion in an article on another topic (see WP:ONEVENT); (C) coverage in Wikipedia occurs in articles; therefore (D) he merits an article with him as the primary subject. Bongo  matic  15:59, 23 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep as clearly notable before his death which is why his death is picking up worldwide media coverage, this isn't even an open and shut case. Thanks, SqueakBox 14:28, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Query - Can anyone find anything written about Hughes prior to his suicide? --Evb-wiki (talk) 15:40, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I did a Factiva search. He is mentioned in several articles about his parents, but not in a manner that I would consider non-trivial. However, the fact that coverage occurred after a single event (his death) does not mean that he is notable only for that event. Bongo  matic  17:02, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
 * He was clearly written about after his mother's untimely death, The Times obit has several quotes from his Dad's noptable writings. Thanks, SqueakBox 22:23, 23 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete. Fails general notability and, as a marine biologist, fails Notability (academics). Bradley0110 (talk) 14:30, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment. Almost certainly fails WP:PROF but seems to fall exactly into Notability (people): "the subject of published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject," with "multiple independent sources" if the "depth of coverage is not substantial". Even if you hold that the depth of the various obituaries is not substantial, he has been covered by numerous independent reliable sources. Bongo  matic  14:48, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment'. Does not fail WP:PROF; see my vote below, which details results of searches on Google Scholar & ISI Web of Science, showing his work has been widely cited in the field of fisheries biology. --Yksin (talk) 21:31, 23 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep. Notable. --SkyWalker (talk) 15:19, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep If the times has an article or obit on his death, he's notable.T hat's a standard consideration here. DGG (talk) 16:12, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
 * cmt - Only, it's not an obit for Nicholas Hughes. It's an article discussing (in 5 1-sentence paragraphs) his death as it relates to the Plath/Hughes mystique. The bulk of the Times article (15+ paragraphs) is about his parents. --Evb-wiki (talk) 16:18, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Oddly, The New York Times shows the article on its obituary page. Bongo  matic  16:38, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
 * This article is similar to Rob Knox which was nominated for deletion but was kept. This article is going through the same process. This article is notable but the article can be improved. SqueakBox mentioned that this person is notable before death the article needs more research.--SkyWalker (talk) 16:35, 23 March 2009 (UTC)


 * His death was just announced today, and many of you read like vultures ripping a carcass. "Well, he's dead, so now we can kill him further.  Into the memory hole with him."  KEEP, as a matter of human decency over Asperger-like Wiki-nerd insensitivity.  -- Davidkevin (talk) 16:33, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
 * You should be more concerned here with sensitivity towards other Wikipedia contributors per WP:CIVIL. Don't insult others just because you disagree with them.  Postdlf (talk) 16:37, 23 March 2009 (UTC)


 * It isn't a matter of disagreement. If this wasn't occurring on the same day his sister announced his death, so people weren't exhibiting such ghoulish timing, I wouldn't say a word.  I don't have an opinion on whether he's notable or not, but he's been in here for some time now, and this is in incredibly bad taste to vote upon on this day.  I change what I meant.  I withdraw "Keep" as also inappropriate and suggest TABLE until a better day.  -- Davidkevin (talk) 16:56, 23 March 2009 (UTC)


 * He has only had an article on Wikipedia since today. The article has no source even a week old. It's a shame in a significant list of tragedies, it's merely today's news in terms of encyclopedic merit. --Evb-wiki (talk) 17:02, 23 March 2009 (UTC)


 * You're right, I was wrong about the length of time the article was up. I should have looked more closely.  That does change the appearance of things, I grant you.  -- Davidkevin (talk) 17:19, 23 March 2009 (UTC)


 * cmt however I do recall photos and articles about him prior to his death. Hard to find because the name Nicholas Hughes is incredibly common, and omitting all 'suicide' from search only excludes those that connect him to his mother. However, he is specifically mentioned in the poems of both his mother and father Sylvia Plath and Ted Hughes as you will see from some sources Ive place on the articles talk page.--Moloch09 (talk) 18:28, 23 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Of course, if you add "marine bilogist" to the search, you get nothing but obits. --Evb-wiki (talk) 18:44, 23 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Reply to Evb-wiki. You asked a simple question both above and on the article's talk page: "Can anyone find anything written about Hughes prior to his suicide?" When I added "marine biologist" "nicholas hughes" and minused "suicide", a google search came up with 30 articles of which all but one are records of his work. Though a google count is no arbiter in this matter, I think your question has been answered. --Moloch09 (talk) 20:09, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Can you post a link, 'cause I'm not seeing it. --Evb-wiki (talk) 20:16, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Apologies, meant to do that --Moloch09 (talk) 20:59, 23 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete. The only thing notable about Hughes is his parents.  Yes, its news right now -- again, because of his parents.  This is not worthy of a seperate article in Wikipedia. --CPAScott (talk) 16:49, 23 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep. Notable. Inspired/influenced poems by both parents. Death being covered by press internationally. J. Van Meter (talk) 16:54, 23 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep - Borderline notability for his academic work, but combined with his background and his significance in his mother's poetry, I think it's clear he's notable. Davidkevin, I think it might be appropriate for you to apologise for your remarks about other users, and especially your invocation of Asperger's syndrome as a term of abuse. AlexTiefling (talk) 16:57, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I have ADHD, my elder son has ADHD and Asperger's. It wasn't meant as abuse but as a comparative descriptive, to show the level of insensitivity I perceived -- but I also made an error of fact which changes the appearance.  I apologize for that, and for being too colorful in trying to make my point.  -- Davidkevin (talk) 17:19, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Notable. And add him to the Death page 66.255.29.70 (talk) 17:46, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
 * The Death page? AlexTiefling (talk) 17:47, 23 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep. The 'notability is not inherited' premise can be qualified here. He spent much of his life deliberately outside the public gaze but the manner of death and echo of mother's suicide makes this sadly notable. --Moloch09 (talk) 17:50, 23 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep I agree with Moloch09. --Kaven (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 18:03, 23 March 2009 (UTC).


 * Keep - if only because it's useful to use the fate of Nicholas Hughes to put the Plath "legend" into a context that's based firmly in reality as opposed to the myth that's been built up. There were and still are intensely hostile feelings towards Ted Hughes by Plath's supporters. They tend to pin all the blame for Plath's death on Hughes. The Plath-supporters' theory is that it's all Ted Hughes' fault and without him in her life, Plath's life would have been all ponies & rainbows etc. The other side of the argument (which doesn't get as much air-time) is that Plath had attempted suicide before she'd even met Ted Hughes and had a history of depressive illness. The antipathy of Plath fans towards Ted Hughes are so intense that Plath-extremists (for want of a better term) have taken take direct action i.e. used chisels to remove the name "Hughes" from Plath's tombstone. This has happened repeatedly over the years since Plath's death in 1963. So, the intellectual arguments have gone beyond the theoretical and spilled over into direct action, or vandalism if you prefer to call it that. There's a theory that depression can have a genetic basis i.e. Nicholas Hughes may have inherited it from his Mother. In time, other details may surface which support this view. So, this article is useful if only to counteract over 45 years of anti-Hughes propaganda published in the press, books and magazine articles and also taught in schools & universities. Therefore, it's a mistake to delete the Nicholas Hughes article. Nabokov (talk) 19:35, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
 * This is a rhetorical question, but I'd appreciate a real response as it goes to my difference in analyzing these issues with most of the above commenters. Why should there not also be a Death of Nicholas Hughes article?  Clearly his death is notable, given its coverage in multiple, independent sources.  Postdlf (talk) 21:10, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. A couple of people have claimed he fails notability as an academic. I disagree.  Per Notability (academics), an academic meets notability requirements if "The person's research has made significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources."  A search in Google Scholar on the search terms ""nicholas hughes" and "salmon" immediately brings up 20 articles of which Hughes was author or coauthor, 8 of which have been cited by at least 14 later articles in the field.  In fact, his 1998 article in Ecology has been cited 55 times (of journals included in Google Scholar).  And that's just using the term "salmon" with his name.  Searches in Web of Science (part of ISI Web of Science Knowledge) show similar results.  All of which indicates that, regardless of his notability as the son of Sylvia Plath & Ted Hughes, he is also independently notable as a scientist in the field of fisheries biology. --Yksin (talk) 21:13, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment: "Nick Hughes" (+Alaska and/or +salmon) returns hits in Google Scholar as well. J. Van Meter (talk) 21:21, 23 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep Wikipedia's coverage of fishermen and ichthyologists isn't great. He might not just be super-notable at that, but he has some notability there. See Review of the Draft Research and Restoration Plan for Arctic-Yukon-Kuskokwim or Chena River Chinook Salmon Study, And in some cases being the son of someone famous actually does cause notability.--T. Anthony (talk) 21:32, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Clearly notable by WP criteria as well as common sense given Hughes' and Plath's consequence. ArcTenebrous (talk) 22:04, 23 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep Clearly notable, no question about it. And no, although someone may choose to live a private life, they cannot choose NOT to be notable . . . particularly if they are the offspring of Sylvia Plath and Ted Hughes and then decide to commit suicide. I'm sincerely sorry for him and for his family, but this is clearly and undeniably of public interest. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mardiste (talk • contribs)
 * Keep Clearly notable.  He is the son of famous author who was not a great author (but an above average author) and who is mostly famous for committing suicide and now he, the son and subject of this article, has committed suicide. Notability comes from the strange circumstances of the mother's and son's lives.--InaMaka (talk) 01:45, 24 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep -- On page 24 of this grant proposal Hughes' ten page resume begins . I suggest the nominator withdraw this nomination.  Geo Swan (talk) 03:46, 24 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep Grounds given for deletion are weak. Xanthoxyl (talk) 06:05, 24 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep Grounds given for deletion are insubstantial, particularly when compared to some other Wikipedia articles which have been proposed for deletion but then kept. Speaking personally, I was interested in this man since reading about him some time ago in his father's letters. Testbed (talk) 12:22, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. Notability sometimes is inherited: people who would be otherwise be unremarkable nevertheless fulfil the basic guideline of independent coverage in reliable sources, just because of who their parents are - especially when the incidents of their lives and deaths give rise to public meditations on the heritability of temperament. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 13:57, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep: "I've said it before, now I'll say it again: A good AfD can sometimes be the best thing for a borderline article." Evb-wiki (nominator)
 * Use the talk page before jumping to AfD and give it time to develop if its borderline - it is a waste of limited WP resources. Yeah people jumped in to save it but they could have been doing other things. AfD is not meant as a tool for expanding an article and if you keep doing i than your abusing the system of good faith. Green Cardamom (talk) 14:47, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I nominated this article in good faith. I still don't believe it's a slam dunk. I still don't see any reliable secondary source written about his life or personal/professional achievenments that was written before his death. And, again, recognizing his notability is largely a matter of synthesis. Sorry you wasted your time. Neither I nor serveral others wasted ours. --Evb-wiki (talk) 16:48, 24 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep Despite the deletionist ramblings of inherited notability, the ample reliable and verifiable sources that cover the individual independently of his parents establish any and all standards of notability. Alansohn (talk) 15:01, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep on the basis of either his professional achievements or his secondary notability as the son and subject matter of two famous people. On the first count, let's remember that you don't have to be universally noted to qualify for an entry here; notability within a field or large community is enough.  There are plenty of scientists here that few of us know of.  And as a famous son, he surely compares with, say, Christopher Robin, who has an entry.  This article will be stronger when someone adds a little more of what Hughes himself felt about being the son and subject matter of his parents.


 * I'd also note the recent nomination for deletion of the Susan Tsvangirai article, the result of which was 'keep'. He is more personally notable than she was, bless the memories of both of them. Earthlyreason (talk) 15:20, 24 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep ThreeOneFive (talk) 17:43, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep I believe he is significant to literary students who wants to better understand Plath, Hughes, and Wevill. While not specifically notable (either deliberately dodging the public gaze or merely choosing to achieve outside of the literary circle), he nevertheless factors into a deeper understanding of the poetry of his parents.  His death, while tragic, does not add to nor diminish his importance. (Jch21)
 * Keep. It says much for Nick's abilities and reputation in scientific circles that he was well known to New Zealand colleagues half a world away from Fairbanks. His Amercican Fisheries Society obituary provides a perspective on his scientific life and work with only marginal reference to his family life and the cicrumstances of his death. Unwinm (talk) 20:29, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment. That's not actually an obit from the American Fisheries Society -- they simply provided a complete verbatim copy of the article his friend Dermot Cole wrote in the Fairbanks Daily News-Miner -- though I certainly agree with you that it's a good source. (Seems like the local Fairbanks sources were the best for actually discussing him & his work, rather than simply his role as the son of his literary parents.) --Yksin (talk) 21:07, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Notability is not inherited? Are you kidding me? Then we should delete Ivanka Trump's entry, and that of many "children of" that populate wikipedia pages. KEEP. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.2.239.27 (talk) 22:15, 24 March 2009 (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.