Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Who’s Who in Nebraska


 * 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. Stifle (talk) 14:13, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Who’s Who in Nebraska

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

The book is not notable as required by WP:NB. It comes close per criterion 1, but this book doesn't seem to be the subject covered in reliable sources, even though it is noted in reliable sources. ALXVA (talk) 18:57, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nebraska-related deletion discussions.
 *  Weak Delete Neutral I really don't think that there is any reliable source supporting notability, however, if one does come up, then I may change my mind. All people reviewing this AfD should see my lengthy talk page discussion with the author. --Fiftytwo thirty (talk) 21:21, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I have changed my vote to Neutral after re-reading WP:NB. --Fiftytwo thirty (talk) 23:25, 15 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep. The snippet available here is enough to show that there was a review in Nebraska History, which would be enough to establish coverage in a reliable source. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 21:42, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Commenting - The standard is not "coverage in a reliable source." The first criterion of WP:NB requires "The book has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works whose sources are independent of the book itself, with at least some of these works serving a general audience." This apparent review is only one, unclear how substantial, and not in an publication somebody would generally consider as serving a general audience. ALXVA (talk) 21:48, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
 * OK ALXVA -- apply your same logic to the following:
 * 100 Greatest African Americans —Preceding unsigned comment added by Drmissio (talk • contribs) 12:50, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Watkins_Biographical_Dictionary
 * Dictionary_of_Virginia_Biography
 * Encyclopedia_of_American_Biography
 * Take a look at the Category "United_States_biographical_dictionaries." If you continue this logic then you will have to flag every Biographical Dictionary on Wikipedia for deletion.Drmissio (talk) 01:40, 15 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep How about "coverage" in the following reliable sources? Doesn't that count for anything?:
 * Representative Nebraskans By John Reuben Johnson
 * American legislative leaders in the Midwest, 1911-1994‎ - Page 195
 * Nebraska ancestree, Volumes 7-9‎ - Page 74
 * Nebraska blue book‎ - Page 225 (put out by the Nebraska Legislature)
 * A Biographical dictionary of the phonetic sciences, pg 172
 * Two thousand notable Americans‎ - Page 477
 * Who's who in finance and industry, Volume 24‎ - Page 57
 * Who's Who in the Midwest, 1986-1987‎ - Page 73
 * Proceedings of the annual meeting - The Nebraska Academy of Sciences and affiliated societies, Volumes 76-85, pg 52
 * Nebraska history, Volumes 20-21‎ - Page 70 (Nebraska Historical Society)
 * Who's who in American education: a biographical dictionary of ..., Volume 13‎ - Page 257
 * The true life Wild West memoir of a bush-popping cow waddy, by Charley Hester, Kirby Ross
 * Western Story: The Recollections of Charley O'Kieffe, 1884-1898‎ - Page 205
 * Publications - Nebraska State Historical Society, Volume 27‎ - Page 176
 * Published sources on Territorial Nebraska: an essay and bibliography, pg 17
 * Private voices, public lives: women speak on the literary life‎ - Page 17
 * History of Garden County, Nebraska, 1885-1985, Volume 1‎ - Page 409
 * Nebraska Library Association quarterly‎ - Page 21
 * Bulletin of the American Home Economics Association‎ - Page 76
 * Railroad history, Issues 176-177‎ - Page 65
 * The lure of the land: a social history of the public lands from the Articles ...‎ - Page 158
 * The American Indian integration of baseball‎ - Page 223
 * The Nebraska state medical journal, Volume 24‎ - Page 199
 * Populism, progressivism, and the transformation of Nebraska politics, 1885-1915‎ - Page 208
 * The call of the range: the story of the Nebraska Stock Growers Association‎ - Page 142
 * American nursing: a biographical dictionary‎ - Page 167
 * American legislative leaders, 1850-1910‎ - Page 558
 * Business education world, Volume 21‎ - Page 150 Drmissio (talk) 01:40, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Note I have moved this very similar discussion from the article talk page so that old arguments do not have to be re-hashed.


 * Of course these are "not reliable", right?  Please do your homework.  BTW I have an accredited PhD -- I know how to do research.  And I know a reliable source when I see one.... 17:16, 13 April 2010 (UTC)~


 * I said nothing about this book not being a reliable source, only that it is not notable. You have still not addressed the underlying notability problem. Almost all of the books at Google books, as well as most of the web pages, are citing this book, and are therefore "trivial" mentions. This book is probably a great source for research, but, as far as I can tell, is not encyclopedic. --Fiftytwo thirty (talk) 21:07, 13 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Well it looks like you and I will never agree. As a historical document it is notable because it covers such a large number of notable Nebraskans at the time period of publication.  It is more notable than any of the Who's Who books that are published by Marquis (which have articles in wikipedia) because it specializes on a specific geography and therefore is more focused.  If this Who's Who is not notable, than none of the other historical biographical dictionaries are notable either -- because all of the books and sources citing any biographical dictionary merely "cite" them just like those that cite this one.  You have to take the genre into account.  I am beginning to get more and more disenchanted with all of the nitpicking of triviality.  Maybe Wikipedia, which started with such a great idea, is becoming mired down.  I spoke with the Wikimedia Foundation guys today and was not impressed either  -- all of this may cause the few academics like myself who have supported Wikipedia to fall back to more standard approaches.....  00:46, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
 * What I would really like to see is a published source somewhere about this work, or something from a third party about the encyclopedia other than using it as a reference point. You have stated that this book is an invaluable resource for the people involved in Nebraska history. That is really all that is necessary. As a new page patroller, this page is currently the least of my worries. I am going to add the notability and stub templates and move on. Wikipedia has struggled, and continues to struggle with just what to include and what not to include. My basic point is this: A lot of good books have been written, and these books serve as reference points for scholars and even this encyclopedia. The guidelines attempts to discern notable books from books that should not be in this or any encyclopedia. The guidelines are obviously not foolproof; I would argue that notability is probably one of the most subjective judgments on this encyclopedia. The reality is that not every book referenced to by others deserves a Wikipedia article. I would like to see this article go beyond a few lines, half of which are quoted, to a form that gives some background as well as importance. --Fiftytwo thirty (talk) 01:29, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

''End of copy from talk page. '' --Fiftytwo thirty (talk) 01:52, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:04, 15 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment Reference works such as this are specifically excluded by WP:NB, thus no valid argument for deletion has been given. This is the same comment that is being given to other similar works. Drmissio (talk) 22:45, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
 * This is not a reference work, it is a periodical issued by a for-profit corporation that charges people to get listed in its pages. It is not edited by scholars. Abductive  (reasoning) 00:39, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment Your statement is NOT TRUE. If you check the historical source introduction you will find that no one was charged to have their name listed in this reference work.  It was edited by the Nebraska Press Association which still exists.  This group is made up of the journalists and media representatives in the state.  Drmissio (talk) 04:33, 16 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete. Individual works in Who’s Who series are not valid topics for an encyclopedia article. This book is no more notable than a local phone directory. Abductive  (reasoning) 00:36, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment Let's be consistent.  If that is true then do a search for the other "Who's Who" articles on Wikipedia.  Your reasoning would apply also to:
 * Marquis_Who's_Who
 * Who's_Who_Among_American_High_School_Students
 * Who's_Who_in_Australia
 * Who's_Who_(UK)
 * Who's_Who_in_American_Art
 * Who's_Who_in_Tudor_England_1485-1603
 * Who's_Who_in_Scotland
 * Canadian_Who's_Who
 * Who's_Who_in_the_DC_Universe


 * It would appear to me that a significant precedent has already been established on Wikipedia to accept articles regarding reference materials in this genre. To say that none of these are "more notable than a local phone company directory" is to suggest that previous editors that accepted the above articles made a mistake.  Are you prepared to purge Wikipedia of all "Who's Who" articles ?  To do less would be inconsistent.  Drmissio (talk) 04:33, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Other stuff exists says to confine the scope of one's arguments to the article at hand. Also, I note that your examples are considerably broader in scope than Nebraska. Abductive  (reasoning) 04:42, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment: I beg to differ.  I think you miss the point of the "Other stuff exists" article.  There are times when pointing out similarities is valid according to that article.  And this is one of them.  You opened this door when you addressed the "Who's Who in Nebraska" article in terms of a "Who's Who" series.  This is plainly a class or genre of material.  Thus comparing how this genre is handled across Wikipedia in terms of consistency is appropriate. The scope of the particular work "Nebraska" versus "Scotland" or some other locale is besides the point.  Please see the ongoing discussion at the village pump. Drmissio (talk) 05:18, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
 * The only thing that really matters is the total lack of secondary sources on the topic. Abductive  (reasoning) 07:13, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment, AGAIN Reference works such as this are specifically excluded by WP:NB, thus no valid argument for deletion has been given. This is the same comment that is being given to other similar works. Please note the ongoing discussion at the village pump.  However in this case, there are secondary sources such as the Nebraska History article cited in the article.Drmissio (talk) 11:58, 16 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Note A discussion about creating a guideline for reference works is currently ongoing at Village pump (policy) (If we consider this as a reference book). Please see the page and contribute to the discussion if possible. --Fiftytwo thirty (talk) 00:47, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment -- I don't feel strongly about whether this stays or goes. But some of the rationale given to delete is not appropriate for this book. The "Who's Who" in the title is being used to incorrectly link this book to vanity biography directories. If you read the stub article, you should see that this book is not a directory of vanity biographies. Maurreen (talk) 05:41, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
 * How is it different? From the article it looks as indiscriminate as the phone book. Abductive  (reasoning) 07:13, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Mainly in that people did not pay to be included. A phone book typically lists all phone numbers that did not specifically choose to be unlisted. That doesn't apply here. Maurreen (talk) 07:27, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
 * How do you know people didn't pay? And suppose that the newspapermen just went down their list of advertizers? Typically these Who's Who things are either direct pay to play, or they include everybody with a checking account, and then try to sell them copies of the damn thing. It's a scam. I hope to God that this article is deleted. Abductive  (reasoning) 07:42, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
 * There is no more justification to believe that people paid, than to believe that people didn't pay. Maurreen (talk) 08:11, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I have been solicited by Who's Who salesmen. Abductive  (reasoning) 09:19, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment -- Two things in response: 1) to read your own experiences in 2010 into the historical situation that occurred 70 years ago in 1940 is most egregious -- this demonstrates a lack of understanding of historiography and the lack of understanding of the need to interpret things within its own historical context.  2) If you read the preface to the book you will see that this is not the case.  The work was a collaborative effort by a large number of people with editors who made decisions regarding what could be included and what could not be included.   I quote a couple of paragraphs for you:
 * FOREWORD: "Although selection of names  has not been an easy task and unavoidable errors have occurred in   the exclusion and inclusion of various biographies, it is believed   this volume contains a larger and a more nearly representative   compilation of life sketches of living Nebraskans than any   previous publication."
 * PREFACE: "Need has existed several years  for a comprehensive biographical and historical directory of   Nebraska. During the past decade there has been no standard   reference work published which offered information regarding   prominent citizens of the state. In answer to this demand, the   Nebraska Press Association offers this compilation which contains   approximately 11,000 biographies in addition to a brief,   up-to-date history of each of the ninety-three counties as well as   a historical sketch of the state."
 * "Interest in this project has been  most encouraging. The Press Association has received hundreds of   letters regarding the undertaking and numerous persons offered   historical material. Due to space limitations, it has not been   possible to accept all these offers; nevertheless this deep   interest greatly facilitated work of compilation and proved an   inspiration to those engaged in the editing of this volume."
 * "Chambers of Commerce, professional  organizations, service groups, Nebraskans in every walk of life,   newspapers and others have co-operated graciously in suggesting   names for inclusion in this work. To them the Nebraska Press  Association extends its appreciation."  Drmissio (talk) 12:15, 16 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Commenting - Drmissio and others, please remember whether this book (and it seems different than a traditional reference work to me, but either way) is a reliable source or not is not the question. The question is whether this book itself has been the subject of significant coverage in other reliable sources to make it notable. You don't even need to take a position on whether the work is a reliable source, though if it is not, that does, in my mind, tend to indicate it is not notable, though even that is not a given. I've still seen nothing that indicates that this work itself meets notability rather than the standard for a reliable soruce. ALXVA (talk) 13:55, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment You surface 2 issues, both of which are being talked about at the Village pump.
 * 1. What is a Reference Book?  You can read the classic definition of a reference book, as given on the University of Illinois Library website here, but I quote:
 * "The classic definition of a reference book is a work that is consulted to find a specific item of information (an address, definition, bibliographic citation, etc). Reference works typically include dictionaries; encyclopedias; directories; almanacs, handbooks, and yearbooks; collected biographies; and indexes. They may be single volume (e.g., dictionary); multi-volume set (encyclopedias), or contins (periodical index)."
 * Thus, Who's Who in Nebraska may be categorized as a reference book.
 * 2. Does the standard of independent sources having this work as a subject matter apply?
 * The answer is NO -- the "significant coverage" standard does not apply according to current Wikipedia notability guidelines, and I quote: "Though the concept of "book" is widely defined, this guideline does not yet provide specific notability criteria for the following types of publications...reference works such as dictionaries, thesauri, encyclopedias, atlases and almanacs..."  Please read the ongoing discussion at the village pump.
 * Thus, again, Reference works such as this are specifically excluded by WP:NB, thus no valid argument for deletion has been given. Drmissio (talk) 16:59, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: In your statement's second part, it sounds like a resounding consensus has been reached, which is untrue. To all that have not participated at the village pump discussion, it is probably more important to come up with an overarching guideline than to argue about this one book. --Fiftytwo thirty (talk) 21:54, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment, neutral. The general argument is that the book is not notable. If WP:BK doesn't apply, the default guideline is WP:N. — Rankiri (talk) 17:00, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Commenting - I think I now understand why Drmissio seems to be talking past other editors. As Rankiri just said, even if WP:NB does not apply, the article must meet WP:GNG which does require significant coverage. Either way, this article should be deleted unless Who’s Who in Nebraska has itself received significant coverage. ALXVA (talk) 17:02, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Rebutting - Even if the General Guidelines include "significant coverage" one still has to read further in the guidelines.  I quote:
 * "Although articles should demonstrate the notability of their topics, and articles on topics that do not meet this criterion are generally deleted, it is important to consider not only whether notability is established by the article, but whether it readily could be. Remember that all Wikipedia articles are not a final draft, and an article can be notable if such sources exist even if they have not been added at present. Merely asserting that such sources exist is seldom persuasive, especially as time passes and actual proof does not surface. If it is likely that significant coverage in independent sources can be found for a topic, deletion due to lack of notability is inappropriate unless active effort has been made to find these sources. For articles of unclear notability, deletion should be a last resort." (emphasis mine)
 * It is important to note that there IS a review article on this reference work in the Nebraska History journal as cited in the article. Since this is a 1940 publication it is not in public domain yet.  Therefore, other resources that may have given a review of the work at that time period may not yet be available in digital format.  Since the Nebraska History periodical did give a review it is likely that other history journals and library journals may also have reviewed it as well.  Even if one holds that WP:GNG is a problem -- NOTE THE GUIDELINES. "For articles of unclear notability, deletion should be a last resort." Certainly no effort has been made to do offline research to find other reviews.  So therefore it should not be deleted at this time.  However, it does appear that the following volumes may have an article on this reference book although I have not been able to look at them yet:
 * Nebraska State Genealogical Society. Nebraska ancestree, Volumes 10-12.  Published by the Nebraska Genealogical Society.
 * John Browning White, Published sources on Territorial Nebraska: an essay and bibliography., v. 23, 1956.
 * However, the discussion on village pump deals with this issue in connection with reference works. CLEARLY, THE WP:GNG GUIDELINES DO NOT AND SHOULD NOT PERTAIN TO REFERENCE WORKS.  Rarely are such works the subject of "significant coverage."  Instead the standard should be "significant usage by credible sources" as discussed at the village pump.
 * I am not intending to"talk past" anyone. Follow the logic and read the current guidelines and discussion for what they say -- and what they don't say.   Drmissio (talk) 19:44, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Commenting - Of course you are not intending to talk past anyone; that happens when people are inadvertently operating off of different premises. Anyway, like it or not, WP:GNG does apply if WP:NB does not, at least until another guideline covering WP:N and this type of work is agreed upon. This AfD is not the place to argue for new notability standards, nor are any of the other WP:POINTy AfDs you listed recently: Example 1, Example 2, and Example 3. We apply the existing standards here. You can read AfD for more on how one should argue AfDs. ALXVA (talk) 20:08, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Again, Commenting Even if GNG applies, read GNG: If it is likely that significant coverage in independent sources can be found for a topic, deletion due to lack of notability is inappropriate unless active effort has been made to find these sources. No active effort over a reasonable time period has been expended.  Therefore the quest for deletion fails because it does not meet the GNG criteria.  Drmissio (talk)  —Preceding undated comment added 20:39, 16 April 2010 (UTC).
 * Commenting - That is true, but the sentence immediately preceeding the sentence you quote is: "Merely asserting that such sources exist is seldom persuasive, especially as time passes and actual proof does not surface." I strongly doubt any editor is going to make an effort greater than you have already made to find sources substantially discussing this book/reference work. If such actual proof does surface, I will gladly change my vote. You've still got several days. If not now, when? ALXVA (talk) 20:46, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Commenting - Again, since this will take library research time -- time should be given. This can easily remain as a "Starter article"  or "stub" to be expanded later.  Why the vitriolic endeavor to delete a short article on a historical document?  Wouldn't it be better to put time into writing or editing content than quibbling over something that obviously meets the guidelines and the "spirit" of the guidelines ?  Drmissio (talk) 21:04, 16 April 2010 (UTC)s


 * Commenting - I am pretty sure I have not said anything vitriolic or ad hominem. Further, if it were so obvious that this article meets the guidelines, there would not be several editors who are neutral or delete. Regradless, maybe this article should be userfied to your user space after it is deleted. Then you would have as long as you would like to add sources. If you find sources, you can add them and then see about moving the article to the main space. ALXVA (talk) 21:53, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
 * As to the "time should be given" portion that Drmissio keeps quoting, it states that there must have a reasonable chance that other sources are available, and no one other than Drmissio have stated such. As for his/her suggestion that we are "quibbling over something that obviously meets the guidelines and the "spirit" of the guidelines ?" It is cases like this that WP guidelines are tested when it is necessary to see what can be done to strengthen these guidelines to handle future cases. --Fiftytwo thirty (talk) 22:03, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Random break


 * Incubate -- Incubation should satisfy all parties. Drmissio would get more time to find appropriate sources or coverage. If such sources are not found ... Maurreen (talk) 08:58, 17 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment -- Interesting, didn't know about that. Being relatively new to Wikipedia (not in duration of account but in time spent on it) there is a lot of which I am not aware.  Like for instance:  AGF and BITE.  Apparently others have felt the way I feel about this process too.  I do believe that some "editors" who have addressed this article and it's attending issues may not have read these articles before.  Maybe ALXVA feels he has not been vitriolic or ad hominem. But it would appear to me that he needs to reread AGF and BITE. In addition, given the number of misrepresentations stated above that have been easily refuted by clear quotations from the source, it appears that some in this discussion have not done due diligence in terms of research but rather have responded with knee-jerk reactions.  The BITE source indicates "prospective contributors" are a great resource for Wikipedia but some have been put-off by others in similar fashion.  As an academic with cross-disciplinary expertise with national influence in my areas I have a lot to potentially contribute.  And I have argued on behalf of Wikipedia previously among my colleagues.  However, most people in my position do not have time for some of the pettiness that has been displayed here.  I am not trying to lecture anyone -- only to help others to see themselves in a different light.  Yes incubation or userfication are two possibilities.  However, "Starter Article" status or "stub" are quite acceptable alternatives as well.  The bottom line is that there are much greater fish to fry.  This whole exercise over a relatively small matter expends unnecessary time and energy and leaves a bitter taste in one's mouth. It depresses any desire to be of much further help to Wikipedia in the future.  User Fiftytwo thirty's move to create a discussion that impacts this article at the village pump was a splendid move -- and the appropriate one since the guidelines are so vague for this class of material.  I applaud his efforts to strengthen the guidelines in this case.


 * Proposal -- I move that the deletion process on this article be suspended pending the discussion at the Village pump (policy). After that has been settled then appropriate decisions can be made.  I have spent way too much time on this already given my other life responsibilities.  However, if I get a chance, I will call some historians and librarians in Nebraska next week and see if they can chase down some further review articles out there.  But if the time is not there it will be at least mid May before I will have more time to personally spend on this. Drmissio (talk) 14:44, 17 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete or incubate. The Village Pump discussion (started after multiple WP:POINT AfD nominations by the above editor) is preliminary and discordant. Right now, the applicable guideline is WP:N, and the subject doesn't seem to pass it. — Rankiri (talk) 14:57, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. This is self-evidently an important book for people researching the history of Nebraska.  The article usefully presents its nature, which is not of the same type as self-selected vanity directory.  But even more fundamentally, as I have presented and defended more eloquently and at greater length at WP:VPP (Closing admin, feel free to read), there is considerable value to this project and to our readers, if they find a work frequently cited as a WP:RS at the bottom of an article, in being able to click through to an article which presents how the source had been selected, edited and compiled; and therefore gives an idea of how solid and scholarly (or not) the source may be.  That seems to me the real advantage of having such an article, and others like it. I don't see any good point served by deleting such an article, which is useful, informative, and directly valuable to our encyclopedic purpose.  Jheald (talk) 08:31, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Well Stated !! I wanted to read your "Need for the work to have a review?" comments but was unable to find it -- what is the url?  Also, what does "Closing admin, feel free to read"  mean? (sorry for the questions -- I am still learning...) Drmissio (talk) 17:48, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Link fixed, thanks. As to the other, it was just a note to the person that finally will make the decision whether or not to keep this page, that they might want to look at the discussion on the WP:Village Pump (policy) page, in addition to the comments on this page.  Jheald (talk) 18:51, 18 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete, I don't think the subject meets general notability guidelines. -- Nuujinn (talk) 19:36, 18 April 2010 (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.