Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Whipple Van Buren Phillips


 * 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. NW ( Talk ) 13:34, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Whipple Van Buren Phillips

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

Not independently notable. Only references speak of him in small detail due to his relation to H. P. Lovecraft. HarlandQPitt (talk) 03:42, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The 9 paragraphs, across two pages, that ISBN 9780853239369 gives to this persons life and works, discussing everything from xyr building the Grand View Hotel and a dam over the Bruneau River to xyr education at East Greenwich Academy, is hardly "small detail". And that was the very first book that Google Books turned up for me.   There are a fair few more, including ISBN 9780313315787 which has an entry for "Phillips, Whipple Van Buren" on pages 203–204. I have to ask: What are these "only references" that you speak of?  Deletion policy and notability deal in what sources exist, not merely in what sources happen to be cited in a stub article.  Have you put in the effort and looked at what sources exist, yourself?  Because your nomination here, and what you wrote on the article's talk page the week before last, don't say that you have, and imply that you haven't. Uncle G (talk) 05:18, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment The nominator was clearly going by the author's own statement that "He was most notable as the grandfather of HP Lovecraft", and I can't fault the nomination at all. If even the author's opinion is that Mr. Phillips's most notable achievement was to have helped raise a famous grandson, what are the rest of us supposed to assume?  If the sources bear out that he was famous in his day, then perhaps the article should mention that he was a nationally-known  businessman who, incidentally, was H.P. Lovecraft's grandfather.  Mandsford (talk) 13:17, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The rest of us are supposed to do our homework, not just rely solely on the information in a stub article. The article doesn't mention what you talk about because it is a stub.  And it's a stub because so far the nominator has three times now crushed its growth as soon as it began, the first time within 5 minutes of the article's creation.  This AFD nomination is the fourth such attempt.  The so-called "author's opinion" is actually an attempt to stop this article from being nominated for speedy deletion yet again, which User:HarlandQPitt has already done once, and to have the stub stick around long enough to be worked on by people and perhaps include content such as that.  (There's been discussion elsewhere on how the A7 speedy deletion criterion ends up distorting article content in this way, with people putting in statements such as this just to get overenthusiastic speedy deletions to stop.  This is a classic example.)  Go and look at the edit history of the article and the discussion on the talk page to see why you can fault the nomination here.  I've undeleted them both for you. And that's not even to mention Guide to deletion and WP:BEFORE, following which turns up the existence of in depth sources documenting this person's life and works (such as the two already cited above) with 30 seconds of work. Uncle G (talk) 15:16, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
 * 9 paragraphs in a a book, and a 2 page (at most) discussion in a book are classic cases of mentions. Mentions are never enough. This person is notable only for his relationship to someone else, so he can be discussed on on that page, rather than in a separate entry. Delete. Hairhorn (talk) 13:02, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Rubbish. A mention is exactly that, a mention, in the context of something else.  It isn't a 9 paragraph 2 page biography that covers the person's life and works from xyr schooling to xyr death, dealing with the several businesses that xe ran and places that xe lived along the way.  You are clearly commenting on a source that you have not actually read. Uncle G (talk) 15:16, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
 * A nine paragraph article is not a mention. Nine paragraphs in a book is a mention. I don't need to read the source to know that. Hairhorn (talk) 16:44, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Rubbish, again. The length of any surrounding text doesn't magically alter the depth of treatment of a subject.  Nine paragraphs doesn't magically become a mention simply by dint of being in a book.  And yes (as should be obvious) you do need to read a source in order to evaluate whether it merely mentions or actually documents a subject.  Go and actually read the sources, and base your evaluation upon doing so.  Anything less is not a useful contribution, and is little more than inventing an evaluation of a source to fit one's preconceived conclusion rather that deriving the conclusion from what one finds the sources to actually be after looking for them and reading them.  Uncle G (talk) 03:07, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
 * In fact surrounding text and where something is published is relevant in the extreme. Context matters, lots of fiddle-faddle about me and which sources I've read don't change that. Hairhorn (talk) 05:32, 26 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Speedy Keep, speedy close. New editor begins working on article, nominator kept removing content. Clear WP:BITE issues. No dispute that the content is accurate. No reason to rush. Give article creator a chance to work on this without keeping him under the gun. I note that the nominator self-identifies as an English teacher; this is like walking around the classroom and grading student papers while they're still writing them. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 16:36, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Uncle G is not a new editor by any means. He's probably been here longer than anyone in the discussion and has contributed thousands of edits.  In any event, "speedy close" and "no reason to rush" are not consistent with each other.  Everyone gets seven days.  Mandsford (talk) 16:59, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Why are you talking about Uncle G? The article creator is The Lloigor, and about five minutes after his first edit, the nominator trashed his contribution and hasn't left him alone since. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 17:28, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you should do your homework first. When the article was first created, I did do my research in order to expand the article into the notable category.  When I was unable to find anything more than his relationship to HP Lovecraft, I turned the article into a redirect to HP Lovecraft's article.  The Lloigor undid this afterwards.  As the new copy was identical to the first, I turned it back into a redirect, explained my reasoning on the talk page, and said "I redirected this page to H. P. Lovecraft, because in and of himself, Whipple Van Buren Phillips has no notability other than being the grandfather of H. P. Lovecraft. If you can find some of his other lifetime achievements that have been documented by reliable 3rd party sources, then please feel free to cite them and recreate the article while incorporating that information, but until that time he is not notable enough to merit his own article. Feel free to voice your opinions or concerns on this page."  The Lliogor then changed the article back to the identical copy and wrote on the talk page, "Whipple Van Buren Phillips was a prominent American industrialist independently notable from HP Lovecraft".  At this point I tagged it for speedy deletion, because it had no sources and clearly the creator was ignoring my advice.  An administrator agreed with my nomination and deleted the page.  When I saw that the page had been recreated, because it appeared on my watchlist, I checked it to see if there was anything that would signify him as notable.  When I saw that the new information did not determine notability, I listed it under articles for deletion to get a consensus of other editors.  At no point did I "trash" his contribution.  At no point did I do anything outside the scope of reasonable editing.  May I ask how I have not left him alone? Have I left unkind messages on his talk page? No.  Have I touched any other articles that he has created or made major contributions to? No.  Did I give him suggestions for how to improve the article to meet Wikipedia standards of notability? Yes. Am I the only editor who has tagged these page for deletion? No.  I think you need to focus on the content of the article and not make unjustified personal attacks against me. HarlandQPitt (talk) 19:05, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Your description of events doesn't match the article history. You redirected the article five minutes after User:The Lloigor created it. When Lloigor reinstated a slightly improved (not identical, better wikiformatting) version of the article, you again redirected, and announced your conclusion (not your reasoning) on the talk page. Lloigor reverted the redirect and gave his justification on the talk page. Rather than engaging in discussion with him, as was appropriate, you speedied the article a few hours later, before the Lloigor added the additional claims he alluded to on the talk page. I see a lack of good faith there; you should have afforded him more than a few hours, and probably should have engaged in discussion with him. Lloigor then created a new version of the article which incorporated enough claims to make speedy deletion inappropriate, and you're still jumping on it.  Whether you mean to or not, you come across as being more upset that the editor "ignored your advice" than interested in improving Wikipedia.  Those five minutes you say you devoted to researching the subject just weren't adequate to make a competent call; five minutes is barely enough time to figure out that the article subject turns up in Google searches under at least four different renderings of his name, including "Whipple Phillips," "Whipple V. Phillips," and "W. V. Phillips,"  let alone evaluate what turns up.  But it is enough time to notice that there's a non-trivial amount of information out there about his industrial activities, and it's also enough time to discover that there's a recently published specialty press book devoting an entire chapter to one of Phillips's businesses, or perhaps spotting the fact that there appears to have been a surprisingly detailed obituary of Phillips, reporting on, inter alia, his European travels, published in a Providence newspaper ; while not available online, it's yet another resource that can't be summarily dismissed. There's a lot of information on Phillips out there, even some lawsuit records showing he wasn't just another small-time entrepreneur.   Writing a reasonably comprehensive article on him may not be easy, but that's not a good reason to delete the article upon creation. Nor is it a good reason to consign the article to userspace, because it's the hard articles that benefit the more from the opportunity for collaboration.  So keep it and let anyone interested work on it; its contents don't violate any policies or do harm to Wikipedia. Its deletion might. And, by the way, Mr. homework-assigning English teacher, despite what you've put in your edit summaries more than once, "independANTly" is not an English word. I'd have a hard time coming with a reason not to give you a failing grade if I were grading this project Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 21:34, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Once again, you need to stop with the personal attacks. Yes as a human I do make mistakes with spelling sometimes.  If you feel the need to question my editing style or contributions, feel free to do so on my talk page.  As it has nothing to do with this discussion, I would ask that you keep your personal issues off of this page. HarlandQPitt (talk) 22:37, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
 * When you identify yourself as a teacher and tell other editors to "do [their] homework," it's a form of subtly belittling them, a form of incivility. When you do a few minutes of superficial research and ignore the attempts by other editors to point out that there's more out there than you found, that's just another way of failing to assume good faith. And since you seem to have no substantive comment other than your policy-violating insistence that rejecting your reasoning, in detail, is somehow a personal attack, you would appear to be the one bringing personal issues here. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 23:00, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I would agree with others that turning an article into a redirect is not much different than erasing it. Whether that would be reasonable editing is a matter of opinion; my opinion is that it's rather extreme.  I'm still not sure that this is notable enough for its own article, but the deletion forum is the appropriate place for others to weigh in on that question.  Mandsford (talk) 20:34, 20 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete as not notable (seeing that his "most notable" property is relationship to Lovecraft) but I'd give the author a chance to introduce other mentions of notability (if there are any and if they are sourced). Being someone's grandfather isn't simply enough. Kotiwalo (talk) 16:47, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Your rationale makes the same two errors as Pastor Theo's does, below. Uncle G (talk) 03:07, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete The subject's notability is linked solely to being the grandfather of a famous writer. The article offers no evidence that Mr. Van Buren meets WP:BIO requirements. Pastor Theo (talk) 02:22, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The sources cited above do, however. As do several other sources that a simple 30 seconds with a search engine will turn up for you if you actually try searching for them.  I encourage you to put deletion policy into practice.  We don't delete stubs with scope for expansion.  And we don't act as if stub articles are comprehensive coverage of the entirety of a subject.  They are, by definition, not.  Looking beyond the contents of the stub is necessary for a correct application of deletion policy.  As I said, please take the 30 seconds to try.  Uncle G (talk) 03:07, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment I see some significance in the fact that Mr. Phillips founded the town of Grand View, Idaho. Perhaps someone will write an article about Mr. Phillips's accomplishments, although the two sentence stub would be just as appropriate in the Lovecraft article.  I can say that in a newspaperarchive.com search, I found nothing to indicate that he was written about during his lifetime, but that service would not necessarily pick up a "W.V. Phillips", and there are variations on how a reporter might have spelled Phillips (one L or two, one P or 2) and it does not have newspapers from Providence, RI.  All I know is that even a wide cast net like Whipple and Phillips yielded nothing.  Mandsford (talk) 13:37, 24 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep. Deletion is not the appropriate way to enforce the reverting of redirection.  The sources cited by UncleG are likely enough for a stand-alone article but certainly enough to justify a merge and redirect to H. P. Lovecraft, which does not require deletion, even if disputed.  Eluchil404 (talk) 06:47, 28 August 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.