Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Roscoe Fillmore

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 keep. (non-admin closure) EggRoll97 (talk) 06:48, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Roscoe Fillmore

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

Roscoe Fillmore (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Biography of a political activist and horticulturist, not properly referenced for the purposes of establishing his permanent notability in either field. As a politician, the notability claims here are that he was a fringe party organizer and unsuccessful candidate for political office, neither of which are instant notability freebies in the absence of a demonstrated WP:GNG pass, and as a horticulturist the only notability claim here is that he published gardening books, which isn't a notability freebie in the absence of critical analysis about the books -- but the only references being cited at all are an academic journal article where he's one of the bylined authors rather than the subject being written about, a small-press biography of him written by his own grandson, and an archival fonds of his own papers, which means that none of the sources are fully independent of him for the purposes of establishing that his work has been externally validated as significant by people he wasn't directly related to or employed by. Nothing stated here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to be referenced much, much better than this. Bearcat (talk) 15:15, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 15:15, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nova Scotia-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 15:15, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as article author. It easily passes WP:GNG. The Acadiensis article was published in 1982, 14 years after his death. It includes a two page summary of his life as well as an extract of his autobiography. It is clearly an independent, in-depth source. Per WP:BEFORE, these other sources are also easily findable. Fillmore is discussed further in this article and this one as well. As for the the full-length book on Fillmore, it was published by Between the Lines Books, which has also published numerous highly-regarded books on the Canadian Left. It was not a self-published missive; that his grandson wrote the book does not discount its legitimacy. The book, which was reviewed by Canada's largest labour history journal Labour / Le Travail as well as Left History, describes the work as displaying "meticulous research" comparable to other biographies. The reviewer also calls it a "valuable addition to the literature on political radicalism in Canada and on Maritime regional history..."--User:Namiba 16:27, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that a paper includes some biographical information about its author(s), as a foreword or afterword to his own work, does not reify that paper into a notability-building source, and the date upon which the article was actually published relative to his death doesn't change anything either. If he's the bylined author of the source, then it does not constitute evidence of his notability — you do not make people notable for writing stuff by referencing said stuff to itself as verification that it exists, you make people notable for writing stuff by referencing said stuff to other people doing critical analysis of said stuff.
And yes, the fact that the biographical book was written by his own grandson does discount its validity as a notability-making source. The fact that a minor publishing house issued it does not override the fact that its author was writing about his own relative, and the fact that the book got reviewed does not override the fact that its author was writing about his own relative. It would be fine to use if the article were properly referenced to enough independent coverage of him to get him over GNG, but it can't be the load-bearing pillar of a claim that its existence gets him over GNG per se, precisely because it was written by his own grandson.
Furthermore, being mentioned in other journal articles is not the same thing as being the subject of those journal articles, with the added bonus that the author or coauthor of both of those journal articles is the same person as his credited coauthor of the article he partially wrote himself, and thus still isn't fully independent of himself. Bearcat (talk) 17:02, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know if you can actually access the the journal article, but it is not BY Fillmore, who was long dead by the time was published. It is by a historian about Fillmore. It is part biography of the subject and part a publishing of Fillmore's autobiography. I think we just fundamentally disagree on the book about Fillmore as a reliable source. As evidenced by the positive reviews by other historians, it is a well-regarded book about Canadian left political history through the life of Roscoe Fillmore. The mentions in multiple other journal articles (more are available that haven't been linked to here) also substantiate the subject's notability.--User:Namiba 17:31, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If it's about Fillmore and not by Fillmore, then why does it explicitly credit Fillmore as one of its two bylined authors? Bearcat (talk) 17:45, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Moreover, in the Canadian context, BTLB isn't a minor publisher. It is one of the foremost publishers of Canadian historical content. Peer-review makes a major difference here.--User:Namiba 17:36, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You do realize you're claiming to know more about the relative importance of Canadian publishing houses than an actual Canadian who actually used to work in publishing, right? McClelland and Stewart is major. House of Anansi is major. Random House of Canada is major. Between the Lines is not nothing, and I never said it was, but it certainly isn't "major" enough that its mere imprimatur on the spine of a book would automatically render the fact that said book was written by the subject's own grandson into a moot point. Bearcat (talk) 17:45, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Here is my final comment for now: Roscoe Fillmore's life is the subject of a reputable, peer-reviewed, full-length book. It has also been written about, to various degrees, in several different journal articles across different decades by different historians. As such, this article should satisfy GNG and be kept.--User:Namiba 18:01, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I will note that Mark Leier writes about Fillmore's life here. Ian McKay writes about Fillmore here as well.--User:Namiba 19:16, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per the well reasoned argument of the nominator.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:15, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I agree with the comments of the nominator Bearcat about why this person fails the notability guidelines. Go4thProsper (talk) 07:52, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Even if you do not count the peer-reviewed book about his life as a source, it is clear that this article easily passes WP:BASIC.--User:Namiba 02:46, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep In my mind, the GNG issue relating to his activism is settled by several sources listed in the article. In addition, his gardening books appears to have been very popular with several articles in major newspapers about them.[1] [2][3] and his gardening skills to be validated by this book[4]. While the gardening aspect probably wouldn't pass GNG on its own, it just adds the already established reasonings that User:Namiba has made. Meanderingbartender (talk) 15:24, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I've added a few more sources and details to the article. I'm still searching for more sources including this one. While most of the references I've added are brief, they all call him either a prominent horticulturist or a leading figure in the Canadian radical movement. Meanderingbartender (talk) 12:55, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - The nominators arguments demonstrate this person lacks notability. Magnolia677 (talk) 16:49, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Magnolia677: Have you read any of the newly found sources or evidence of notability established in the discussion? Meanderingbartender (talk) 16:56, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Most of the new sources are from pay sites, so I cannot access them. There's also a book about him, written by his grandson. Magnolia677 (talk) 18:59, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, per Shushugah. This seems to be a clearly notable individual, I can point you to thousands of less well sourced articles of far less notable individuals. Boynamedsue (talk) 14:23, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: I confirmed the JSTOR references mentioned above
Along with these newspaper items previously mentioned:
and these Google books refs:
We can argue over whether any individual item above is SIGCOV, but BASIC allows for "If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may not be sufficient to establish notability." I think a couple of the items above pass SIGCOV, all together I believe this passes BASIC.  // Timothy :: talk  15:23, 11 March 2021 (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/Roscoe_Fillmore&oldid=1011681605"