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

Who’s Who in Nebraska

Who’s Who in Nebraska (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)

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

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)

• Keep Comment (duplicate vote) 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)

• 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)