Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bym Porter

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
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 delete. Sandstein 14:49, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bym Porter

Bym Porter (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Medium level public servant. The main source is a broken link, presumably this non-indept piece by his son. Part of a series of spam articles by Castlemate (talk · contribs) who writes articles about non-notable people from Newington College.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Adsfvdf54gbb (talk • contribs)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Longhair\talk 02:13, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 22:04, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Subject is notable as the intro notes ... "an Australian engineer who managed the design and construction of the Australian National Library and the Royal Australian Mint. As principal engineer in charge of the Canberra water supply, he was instrumental in the fluoridation of the national capital's water supply in 1964." References require updating but please note that this AfD on a distinguished Australian engineer is part of an attack by a user with a highly suspicious eding record. Castlemate (talk) 22:23, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Nothing to suggest notability: the only sources cited are a dead link to the Planning and Land Authority, birth and death records that apply to everyone, and his old school's Register of Past Students. The Drover's Wife (talk) 23:26, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. No less an authority than the ACT Goverment not only names a road after this subject but quotes his son in detailing his life. Maybe not independent in the minds of Wikipedians but I'll go with the governments view of Porter' notability. While others are busy deleting I have taken the time to update a reference. Castlemate (talk) 16:58, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • That would indicate that only his son really knows about him, and no 3rd party people actually do. Adsfvdf54gbb (talk) 06:31, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        • Local road naming, even in the ACT, signifies only necessarily local notability: there are millions of streets named after Joe Bloggs who had a farm in the area once or sat on a local council in 1862. Not one of the streets I lived on in the ACT was named after someone notable for Wikipedia purposes (and hell, even on your own argument - they named a lane after him, not a freeway). The Drover's Wife (talk) 08:33, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete naming roads is a dime a dozen. I can name 20 people who have roads named after them in Detroit, Michigan alone who are no where near notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:21, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The following might help to explain how a street name is gazetted in the ACT: Public places in the ACT are named in accordance with the provisions of the Public Place Names Act 1989. This link to the Public Place Names Guidelines (NI20140643) explains some of the processes relating to street names in the ACT.[1] I have found a link to the disallowable instrument (DI2009- 33) and explanatory statement which determined the name Bym Porter Lane: [2] The instrument was notified on the ACT Legislation Register on 26 March 2009 and tabled in the ACT Legislative Assembly for 6 sitting days. Attached is an extract from the official publication of the Works Department social club (Action) recording Porter’s retirement in 1969 and also enclosed an example of the sources used to research Bym Porter’s career: [3] SPECIAL GAZETTE UNDER THE “PUBLIC SERVICE ACT, 1902.” (1929, January 18). [4] Department of Works and Local Government RESIGNATIONS. Government Gazette of the State of New South Wales (Sydney, NSW : 1901 - 2001) Thursday 24 December 1936 [Issue No.211 (SUPPLEMENT)] p 5284 … Mr. Alan James Porter,, Engineering Draftsman [30th December, 1936]. [5] Commonwealth of Australia Gazette (National : 1901 - 1957) Thursday 4 June 1953 [Issue No.35] p 1565 Department of Works. Castlemate (talk) 05:48, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • The ACT Government itself says it is looking for notable Australians for commemoration: "ACT Place Names welcomes nominations of names of notable Australians for inclusion in the ACT's nomenclature database to be used to help research names for future suburbs, streets and parks."[6] Castlemate (talk) 06:01, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Upon reviewing the page/ article as requested, it seems no action can be taken until whomever is principally responsible for it can fix its broken refs. If this is not done in a reasonable time frame, say 14 days it should be deleted not on basis of notability or lack of, but for lack of reliable genuine refs. Robertwhyteus (talk) 12:16, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Response. The links do not appear to have been repaired. The fact that this article is included in a list concerning educators is not a problem. Wikipedia editors generally are competent to evaluate articles for deletion regardless of their appearance in various lists and anyway that is not the only way one might happen upon this one. This article replies too much on one single reference which it resembles, ACT place names. The Ryerson Index goes to a search, not a result. The BD&Ms links don’t work, and the Canberra Times article is a tiny fragment. The Newington College Register of Past Students 1863-1998 (Syd, 1999) has no publication details. Bym Porter may be notable but Wikipedia cannot recognise notability without high quality references demonstrating this. The normal suggestion in cases like this would be to advise you to fix the broken references and find others demonstrating notability, such as inclusion in the Australian Dictionary of Biography. The bar is raised when the notability issue is raised, as it is a matter of evidence, not opinion. If the notability case cannot be made to the satisfaction of other editors the page will have to be deleted. This should not be taken as an attack or disrespect of the author/s of the article, it is simply the burden of proof called for when questions arise.Robertwhyteus (talk) 00:00, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Response If a bar is raised due to an AfD then I would like to see a link to that curious policy. A person is surely notable or they are not. This person is not listed by the ADB nor are many others who are notable. While I'm a great fan of this notable publication I am well aware that it has many gaps. I'm pleased to hear that Wikipedia editors are generally competent. If that is the case I would like to see this debate competently listed under engineers rather than rather than educators. I accept your good faith and thank you for you for its reciprocity. As you can see the only references are now the ACT Government and the Canberra Times. I am disappointed to find that "an Australian engineer who managed the design and construction of the Australian National Library and the Royal Australian Mint and was principal engineer in charge of the Canberra water supply as well as instrumental in the fluoridation of the national capital's water supply in 1964" is not notable. Wikipedia and Australia is the poorer for that proclamation. Castlemate (talk) 02:37, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Response Personally I agree with you. There’s no reason why a principal engineer of a major Australian city shouldn’t be considered notable. Especially a city which was built more or less as a demonstration of best practice design. The article is more than a stub and it's very well written, not too long and admirably encyclopedic in tone. It’s not controversial and not about a living person. If we could just turn up a couple of references I would not hesitate in voting KEEP. It’s frustrating there aren't refs other the streetnames citing his head of the river win, his first XV position and role, his representative rugby union career, army service, association with Royal Australian Mint, National Library building, fluoridation, ACT rugby union judiciary, Anzac Parade in web searches, in results other than versions of the wikipedia article. However I did find his mention in the Nominal Roll of WWII veterans, so there are records, perhaps not as accessible as they could be http://nominal-rolls.dva.gov.au/veteran?id=290148&c=WW2#R I hardly think Wikipedia is going to be overcrowded because of principal engineers and my leaning would be towards KEEP. Certainly there would seem to be enough discussion and it would be good if some person way above my pay grade (joke) made a decision. PS the bar raised due to an AfD is not policy, it just happens, human psychology. It’s akin to “if all you’ve got is a hammer, all you can see is a nail”. If all you’ve got is an afD, all you can see...
  • Keep: Clearly meets GNG. The nomantor's ad hominem attack against the artile's creator is not only false (none of the articles constitute spam) and is certainly not a basis for deletion, but is indicative that the remainder of the rationale offered is weak. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:20, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Except it still has no independent source except an obit by his son. Adsfvdf54gbb (talk) 21:53, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment. As the subject's name is Alan James Pawley Porter who was known by his nickname, Bym, and is variously T.P.Porter and T.P.P.Porter further research is taking time. Between his arrival in Canberra in 1936 and his departure for Adelaide in 1948 Porter is mentioned in the Canberra Times, the paper of record for the national capital, no less than 78 times. Theses mentions are not just in lists as indeed even the newspaper thought him sufficiently important enough to discus his departure from Canberra in 1948. Given the attacks on the quality of the ACT Government reference used and reliance on that for biogrphical details, I haven't even bothered to mention all his rugby notability. If this entry is given a stay of execution I will include this, his war career, his involvement in engineers professional bodies and public service appointments. As many of those calling for deletion of public servants in this barbarous mass execution of bios created by me will tell you ... public service isn't sexy. Even less sexy is engineering. Consequently Wikipedia is full of non-notable self promoting reality TV stars. Castlemate (talk) 23:34, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • Although written by his son, the source is fine - it's a government body, that both commissioned the piece (an act which itself indicates notability) and exercised editorial oversight. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:19, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 06:57, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The perils of a lack of independent source can be seen when you look at the National Library of Australia website which states that it was designed by Walter Bunning not this person. Other searches indicate the same. When you have a source by a family member or other associates, you get the danger of falsely inflating achievements that were done by other people Adsfvdf54gbb (talk) 20:54, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Searching for Porter, under various versions of his name (including his nickname and the various initialisms mentioned above), brings up very few relevant results. Although he appears to have enjoyed a successful career, there is no indication from the information we do have that the subject meets WP:GNG or made a significant/notable impact in the field of engineering. The fact that a road has been named after someone does not, in itself, demonstrate that the honouree is inherently notable for encyclopaedic purposes. Eloquai (talk) 00:50, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This is a worldwide Wikipedia, not a specialized project for the advancement of the specialized interests of a Australians. As I said before, having a road named after someone is in no wise a sign of notability. Further, this is past of the spamming of Wikipedia with useless articles on varoius Newington College alumni, a spamming that needs to stop.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:26, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Notability according to some government is not the same as notability according to Wikipedia guidelines.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:27, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I have not been able to find any sources whatsoever apart from the two in the article, one of which is a very minor routine obit in the Canberra Times, and the other of which is a bio written by his son because he had a street named after him. Neither is remotely sufficient for WP:GNG. I've had a look in Trove (which has the Canberra Times fully digitised) and haven't been able to find anything. Frickeg (talk) 10:10, 15 December 2017 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Bym_Porter&oldid=1071344050"