Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Richard H. Hall
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 keep. Davewild (talk) 18:39, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Richard H. Hall
- Richard H. Hall (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Seems to fail WP:BIO. I cannot find sources independent of the UFO-community which would can vouch for something which would confer notability on him. jps (talk) 16:32, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Certainly The Washington Post is independent of the UFO community. jps, did you read their lengthy and respectful story about Hall, which establishes his notability? It's linked right there in the reference section. I have no interest myself in "Ufo-ology" but this man seems notable to me. Cullen328 (talk) 17:26, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I saw it, but it's basically a puff-piece news-of-the-weird obituary as far as I can tell. It doesn't really lend itself to notability in the classic sense, I'd say. jps (talk) 23:32, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Joshua, you see a puff piece, written as "news-of-the-weird". I see a 19 paragraph article, written with barely a trace of irony or mockery, accompanied by a photograph, that describes a man's life work quite respectfully. Let me repeat that I don't share this man's beliefs in any way, shape or form, but the Washington Post is a reputable newspaper, and this article goes a long way toward establishing his notability, in my view. Cullen328 (talk) 04:03, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- It's from the local section and is serving as an obituary. I imagine the journalist was sent out on a junket to interview this guy and had the story sitting around when he kicked the bucket. Then he published it. I've seen plenty of these kinds of parochial "features" in other local papers. The reason that the article doesn't establish his notability is because it clearly indicates that his personality and ideas do not see the light of day outside the UFO community. They tied in irrelevant commentary from Seth Shostack to fill it out — no, if this is what you think passes for a good source for establishing notability these days, I'm pretty sure we're on different pages. jps (talk) 05:43, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Joshua, let me remind you that WP:RS says that "Mainstream news sources are generally considered to be reliable". You are free to imagine this journalist's junket but you offer no evidence in support of your personal theory. Where do our policies say that articles in "local sections" of mainstream news sources are assumed to be unreliable? Or obituaries for that matter? The funny thing about our disagreement here is that I agree with about 99% of what is on your user page. I am personally totally opposed to pseudoscience, but I am also 100% in favor of the neutral point of view on Wikipedia. Yes, we seem to be on different pages in this particular debate. I am on the page of established Wikipedia policy regarding notability and the neutral point of view. Perhaps we should wait for other editors to chime in. Cullen328 (talk)
- It is not required that someone's "personality and ideas" must "see the light of day" (whatever that means) in order for that person to be considered notable. Some cranks are notable. It isn't our job to censor notable cranks out of Wikipedia. Cullen328 (talk) 06:45, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh, it absolutely is required that sources be WP:FRINGE#Independent sources if we are going to have an article about a person. We cannot write articles based on crank-sources alone or even based on secondary sources that rely solely on crank sources (which is essentially what the WaPo article is, IMHO). jps (talk) 23:12, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- It is not required that someone's "personality and ideas" must "see the light of day" (whatever that means) in order for that person to be considered notable. Some cranks are notable. It isn't our job to censor notable cranks out of Wikipedia. Cullen328 (talk) 06:45, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Joshua, let me remind you that WP:RS says that "Mainstream news sources are generally considered to be reliable". You are free to imagine this journalist's junket but you offer no evidence in support of your personal theory. Where do our policies say that articles in "local sections" of mainstream news sources are assumed to be unreliable? Or obituaries for that matter? The funny thing about our disagreement here is that I agree with about 99% of what is on your user page. I am personally totally opposed to pseudoscience, but I am also 100% in favor of the neutral point of view on Wikipedia. Yes, we seem to be on different pages in this particular debate. I am on the page of established Wikipedia policy regarding notability and the neutral point of view. Perhaps we should wait for other editors to chime in. Cullen328 (talk)
- It's from the local section and is serving as an obituary. I imagine the journalist was sent out on a junket to interview this guy and had the story sitting around when he kicked the bucket. Then he published it. I've seen plenty of these kinds of parochial "features" in other local papers. The reason that the article doesn't establish his notability is because it clearly indicates that his personality and ideas do not see the light of day outside the UFO community. They tied in irrelevant commentary from Seth Shostack to fill it out — no, if this is what you think passes for a good source for establishing notability these days, I'm pretty sure we're on different pages. jps (talk) 05:43, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Joshua, you see a puff piece, written as "news-of-the-weird". I see a 19 paragraph article, written with barely a trace of irony or mockery, accompanied by a photograph, that describes a man's life work quite respectfully. Let me repeat that I don't share this man's beliefs in any way, shape or form, but the Washington Post is a reputable newspaper, and this article goes a long way toward establishing his notability, in my view. Cullen328 (talk) 04:03, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I saw it, but it's basically a puff-piece news-of-the-weird obituary as far as I can tell. It doesn't really lend itself to notability in the classic sense, I'd say. jps (talk) 23:32, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:42, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:42, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Honestly, if the article on Hall is going to be deleted on the grounds that he is of no interest "outside the UFO community", then I don't see how one can justify having Wikipedia articles on other "Ufologists" such as Jerome Clark and Kevin Randle. If - as I suspect - the goal here is to eliminate "crank" topics like UFOs from Wikipedia, then why have any UFO-related articles? Hall was a well-known figure in Ufology, the Washington Post is a "mainstream" source, and Hall did write two books on women in the Civil War (one published by the University Press of Kansas). At his death I know that several UFO-related websites quoted from this Wikipedia article in their comments about him, so clearly at least some people are using it. The article does need more sources, but I'm dubious about deleting him simply because a poster thinks he's not "notable" outside of Ufology (how many other Wikipedia articles are bios of people who aren't notable outside their chosen field?). It seems like a double standard to me - if you're notable in a "legitimate" field your article is OK, if you're notable in a field many people consider "pseudoscience" then your article should be deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.0.187.153 (talk) 23:54, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd like to add that Wikipedia does have a category labeled Ufologists, and Hall's article provides a link to that category. If Wikipedia considers Ufologists to be notable enough to have their own category, then how can Hall be deleted for not being notable? Just a thought.
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:47, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per Cullen328. The Washington Post is a reputable newspaper. CPerked (talk) 05:07, 31 December 2010 (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.