Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Charles Dwelley

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 as another week has not suggested anything else and the subject, as I see the article, is in fact notable (NAC). SwisterTwister talk 05:23, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Charles Dwelley

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:BASIC and WP:ANYBIO. Unable to locate secondary sources to support notability. Magnolia677 (talk) 03:19, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Magnolia677: I don't understand your reasoning. 90% of the article is based on secondary, independent sources that are clearly defined. These are:

The Seattle Times
The Olympian
Muller, Judy (2011). Emus Loose in Egnar: Big Stories from Small Towns. Lincoln, Nebraska: University of Nebraska Press. ISBN 978-0803230163. LCCN 2010051804. OCLC 679936550.
Skagit River Journal of History and Folklore
Skagit Valley Herald
The two issues of The Concrete Herald that were published after Dwelley stopped editing it (in fact after his death).

Only a very minor portion of the article cites The Concrete Herald when it was edited by Dwelley.

Hence, I do not understand why you cite WP:BASIC. Please explain. 凰兰时罗 (talk) 03:32, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Although it is not required, it would be helpful if a link could be provided to these sources. Being able to see and read these secondary sources would assist in determining notability. I did my own search for secondary sources and was not successful. Thank you. Magnolia677 (talk) 11:00, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Magnolia677:! Thank you for your reply. Let’s see what I can do.

The Seattle Times – here are some options:
1. First of all, modern issues already have links incorporated into references (in the article).
2. Older issues are available in here. Most academic institutions would have this subscription, so if you don’t want to pay for a subscription, you might want to get to the relevant issues from a college, perhaps? Alternatively, you can search for “Dwelley” or “Concrete Herald”, and this service will show you snippets free of charge. This will allow you crosscheck those snippets against the sources that I cited (at least you can see that this information is actually there).
I know of an older website that used to be maintained by Skagit Historical Society, but now it’s just sitting on the net. This site re-quoted (albeit with some editorial remarks and omissions) some other sources that I used. Specifically:
1. this page quotes from Bourasaw, 2005 (see at the very top.)
2. this page quotes from Skagit Valley Herald and The Olympian (please search for these titles within the page).
Muller 2011 is available on Amazon here If you have an account, you can ‘look inside’, and perhaps get to the right page by searching for Dwelley.
Finally, the links to the post-Dwelley issues of 'The Concrete Herald' are available in the article text.

I hope this helps! 凰兰时罗 (talk) 02:20, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I just added a couple of extra sources. BTW, I still do not understand why you (@Magnolia677:) thought that the article fails WP:BASIC. I agree that The Concrete Herald was failing WP:BASIC prior to my recent edits, but I believe that this article never did. The subject was shown to have extensive coverage (his bio, career, accomplishments, etc.) in independent, published, and reliable sources from the start. Look, the only 'dependent' sources in there are the issues of The Concrete Herald that were published when Dwelley was editing it. However, they were used to fully support only one section: 'World War II interruption' and to provide some supporting information for the date of marriage with the second wife and for some details in libel controversy. (Both subjects also have independent sources.). Hence, the coverage by independent sources was shown from the very start, and I strongly believe that this nomination for deletion was a mistake. 凰兰时罗 (talk) 17:01, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

All the Seattle Times articles are behind a paywall. I've done my own search for reliable secondary sources and have not been successful. Magnolia677 (talk) 17:16, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Magnolia677: I'm sorry, but I fail to understand this logic. The fact that you cannot immediately access the provided source(s) should not affect WP:BASIC-compliance in any way. I posted some helpful tips above, but I fail to see within current policies anything that justifies the discrimination of paper sources in favor of online sources. On the contrary, I see in the policies a consistent push in favor of the most reliable sources, and for older sources on average, the sources published in paper form are more reliable than sources published in electronic form. Having said that, I admit that I'm new, and I could have overlooked something. Please direct me to the specific policy that you think supports this logic, if there is one. 凰兰时罗 (talk) 17:44, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Magnolia677, if you want, you can post the links at Wikipedia:WikiProject Resource Exchange/Resource Request and see if someone there can get you a PDF or some copy of the source so you can verify the claims. Per WP:PAYWALL, sources do not have to be freely accessible in order to be used in an article. clpo13_(talk) 23:44, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't realize that this might be a question of veracity. I have access to PDFs of Seattle Times, and I can probably share them somehow within the appropriate guidelines. 凰兰时罗 (talk) 00:21, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I made another update, adding more independent sources. @Magnolia677:, do you have enough to withdraw your nomination? 凰兰时罗 (talk) 23:36, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:19, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:20, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:33, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:33, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Looks like that subject meets WP:JOURNALIST and WP:GNG (I couldn't access offline sources though). Anup [Talk] 04:05, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep due to lifetime achievements, but possibly reduce 30 to 50% so that it looks less like a WP:MEMORIAL. There's excessive intricate detail in the article that (in my view) takes away from the subject's accomplishments. It would also be less likely to be renominated for deletion. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:22, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I just updated the article with additional facts/sources. After learning additional facts, I realized that the person is even more notable than I originally thought. @K.e.coffman: I noted that you suggested the contraction the article for balance. As you can see, I've chosen another approach: I enhanced other sections. I believe this should work better. What do you think? 凰兰时罗 (talk) 02:26, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 22:21, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@MBisanz: Frankly, I don't understand why this nomination is still going, because the initial problem has been rectified a long time ago. The current version of the article has all aspects of the life of this person covered by reliable secondary sources:
1. "The Washington Newspaper" which is a journal that is published by the University of Washington.
2. "Seattle Times" which is a mainstream newspaper.
Sources of this quality are listed in WP:SOURCES as reliable, and WP:GNG (a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject) is met without a question.
If we zero in on WP:JOURNALIST, there is evidence in the article that the person used to be widely cited (item 1) (confirmed by the aforementioned journal and a book published by the University of Nebraska press) and co-created notable Concrete Herald (item 3).
To summarize, the initial reason is no longer applicable, the person who started the nomination (@Magnolia677:) apparently has nothing more to say, and two other people are in favor of keep. So, how much longer should this deletion process go on? 凰兰时罗 (talk) 02:52, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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.