Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Frank Stilwell

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The result was Withdrawn by nominator Niteshift36 (talk) 07:36, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Frank Stilwell

Frank Stilwell (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)

Simply fails WP:BIO. Subject was a minor character in the Tombstone/OK Corral saga that achieved little in the way of notability on his own. Article had some refs that no longer function (mostly to non-reliable sources). It does cite one book as a reference (although without any inline citations) and in explaining it's relevence, even the article author refers to Stilwell as a "minor Tombstone character". Niteshift36 (talk) 23:31, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Frank Stilwell (note they spelled his name wrong) has a life-sized statue in Tucson. http://www.waymarking.com/waymarks/WM1QE7 How many of the forgettable soccer goalkeepers that WP keeps track of as BLP figures, have a public statue of them, anywhere?

Not a great deal is known about F. Stilwell, although more is being collected as time goes by. I suggest you give it some moretime. He is a pivotal figure. He probably murdered Morgan Earp, or else was in the party that did. His murder by Wyatt Earp (one of just two men Wyatt was thought to have killed without assistance) is the reason for the arrest warrants issued for Earp, Holliday, Johnson and McMasters, that finally drove Earp and Holliday out of Arizona, never to return. As such, somebody has had to play Stilwell in every film about Tombstone and Earp.

People want to know about Stilwell. His Wiki page was viewed 1837 times in just the month of Dec. 2009, and gets 50 hits a day or so. http://stats.grok.se/en/200912/Frank%20Stilwell How many BLP figures can you say the same of? The major source of the public's correct info on the man (like his name spelling) is actually the page you want to delete. He gets about 40,000 hits on Google, most of them to the right guy. But many of them are due to this page. SBHarris 05:40, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

• Talking about what he probably did or might have done doesn't get it. Ghits and number of views do not equal notability. What would make him notable was significant coverage, not always being in the periphery. Yes, he's been portrayed in movies. It was always a minor role played by a minor actor. That's because he was a figure in what happened, but not a central one. More time? The article has been there for 3 and a half years and the man has been dead for 128 years. How much more time is needed to demonstrate notability? Niteshift36 (talk) 19:21, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

• Weak keep: could be a case of WP:BLP1E - press coverage but as a minor player in one event. But the coverage seems to be enduring: quite a few gbook results and he was a deputy sheriff as well. For that reason I lean to keep. Having the same name as the legend himself explains the hits. --Mkativerata (talk) 06:46, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

• Sorry, being a deputy sheriff isn't that notable. Especially back then when you could be a deputy in one city and a bank robber in the next, then a deputy again. He is mentioned in books. Nobody denies that. But most of the coverage is trivial, not the significant coverage that WP:N requires. He is known soley because he was around notable people and a notable event, not because of anything he achieved. Niteshift36 (talk) 19:24, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

• I count more than one event with this guy: murder and acquittal in 1877; fired as deputy sheriff in 1881; arrest for robbery in 1881; murder of Morgan Earp; killed by Wyatt Earp. They're multiple events placing him as an enduring part of the historical record. But I'll admit its not a strong case and there is a lack of sourcing (hence my weak keep). --Mkativerata (talk) 19:36, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

• Ok, first, remove "murder of Morgan Earp" from the list. That hasn't been proven and he wasn't convicted of it. What someone probably or might have done isn't going to fly. A list of non-notable events doesn't equal notable. Murder and acquital? Not notable. Millions of people have committed murders and aren't notable. This is especially true when the person he was accused (and acquitted of) murdering was not a notable person. See WP:PERP. Fired from being a deputy? Come on....getting fired from a job isn't notable. Arrested for robbery? Again, millions have been and aren't notable and he was never convicted of it. See WP:PERP. The murder of Morgan Earp, if there was very strong evidence or a conviction, would probably make a case for inclusion under WP:N/CA. But there isn't very strong evidence or a conviction. Murdered by Wyatt is the strongest part of that argument, but leads more to a redirect to Wyatt Earp than a stand alone article of an otherwise non-notable man. We redirect victims of notable killers all the time. What weakens this immensly is that Earp wasn't the only one who shot him and that everyone charged was acquitted because Stilwell was "resisting arrest". So it wasn't really even a "murder". Murder is the unlawful taking of a human life. The actions were judged lawful. Niteshift36 (talk) 19:47, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, Wyatt wasn't the only one who shot him. Wyatt used the shotgun and that would surely have been fatal. The other shots were anger shots. Wyatt himself doesn't even suggest he was trying to arrest Stilwell. Nor was he acquitted of the murder (that's what makes it a murder). He fled the territory, there never was a trial, and those warrants remained outstanding to the end of his life. Colorado refused to extradite Holliday, but on a technicality. We assume that might have happened to Wyatt, but nobody ever tested it, and Wyatt wasn't about to.

Stilwell, acquitted or not, was mentioned in many newspapers of the time, and seems likely to have been planning an assassination when he died (what else was he doing armed in the trainyard in the middle of the night? Trainspotting?). The multiple newspaper accounts for multiple events make him notable. His mention in multiple places in every book on Earp and Tombstone (of which there are a couple of dozen) make him notable. Far more notable than most of the bio subjects in Wikipedia. SBHarris 21:08, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

• Earp was CHARGED with murder, but was acquited of it. That means he was judged to have not committed a murder. That means Stilwell wasn't murdered, he was killed. And your own article says the Earp defense was that Stilwell was "resisting arrest". You're contradicting your article. Being mentioned in the news isn't notability. Significant coverage is the standard. If you have all these significant stories, where are they? Why aren't they in the article? And again, complaining about what other bios exist doesn't justify this one. Please stay focused on the issue. Niteshift36 (talk) 23:52, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

• Disaggregating the events of a person's life and arguing that each event is individually non-notable does not prove that the individual him or herself is not notable. In my view, (very much on balance) Stilwell's life as a whole is notable and he has received significant coverage of it. --Mkativerata (talk) 19:55, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

• Again, a list of non-notable events don't equate notability. Further, where is the evidence of significant coverage? Being mentioned in a book or a news piece doesn't make you notable. Especially when the news piece is local and the person is acquitted of the event. Can you imagine what Wikipedia would look like if we had a bio for everyone who was arrested for murdering a non-notable person? Or if we had a bio for everyone arrested for bank robbery and it was covered by the local newspaper? That doesn't even take into account that he wasn't convicted of either one. Niteshift36 (talk) 19:58, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

What would it look like? WP would look like what it DOES look like. 14% of the BLP subjects here (more than 50,000 of 430,000 BLPs) have not a SINGLE citation. Most of the rest are obscure-- they certainly have had nobody play them in two films. Wyatt Earp Tombstone (And damn, they spelled his name wrong in both film credits). SBHarris 21:10, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

• This is not a BLP. The L in BLP stands for LIVING. So BLP's are not the issue here. Why are you even talking about BLP's? And again, all you are doing is arguing that WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS, which is not a valid reason for a keep. And yes, "John Dennis Johnston" is a minor actor. They used a minor actor because it's a minor role. Same with "Tomas Arana". Why? Because Stilwell is a minor character in the Tombstone saga. Niteshift36 (talk) 23:06, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

If both are minor actors, why does one have a BLP? You should link names and see what you find. I expect you to go straight to Arana's page and PROD it, on the basis that he plays minor characters, who themselves aren't notable.

As to WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS that is a severe misuse of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, which you really should read. Including this part which states (please read this three times): "Thus 'inherent notability' is basically codification of OSE [Other stuff exists]." Another way of saying that the fact that a heck of a lot of other stuff exists, is one way of detecting what the WP:consensus on a given notability issue is. In fact, it is the only good way, and the example given is that high schools are notable but grade schools are not. Why? Because of the way WP has always done it, is why. The appeal that this is OTHERSTUFF backfires there, because OTHERSTUFF tells you how we do things, particularly in the area of notability. So you swim against the tide, here. SBHarris 23:36, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

• I didn't delete your answer. I moved the totally unrelated discussion to the talk page and left an edit summary stating that. You allegations of bad faith are getting old. As for Tomas being a minor actor....he is a minor actor. The major of his roles are supporting roles of minor characters (like Frank Stilwell) or single/limited appearences in TV shows. But, depsite being a minor actor, he meets the criteria for WP:ENT, barely, maybe. Mainly for his role in Gladiator, which happened years after Tombstone. He was even more minor when he was cast in Tombstone. How about we get back on track and discuss why Stilwell is or is not notable and not whether Tomas Arana is. Niteshift36 (talk) 23:43, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Other views are needed. You can't tell if an Albanian is notable without asking some Albanians. I'll put neutral tags on the Earp and Holliday pages. Feel free to put RfC tags anywhere that YOU like. The more input the better on this, and I care not where it comes from, since it's bound to agree more with me than you. Sorry. SBHarris 02:08, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

• Of course other views are needed, which is why we are discussing this in public instead of on your talk page or mine. I don't know what you Albanians analogy is supposed to mean. I'm an American, this is American history. So I don't know what you're driving at Disregard, I see now, you're going to canvass for votes. Niteshift36 (talk) 02:13, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Don't toss around the word "canvass" lightly. I've done nothing in contravention to WP:CANVASS. You can do anything you like which doesn't violate that policy also. SBHarris 02:31, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Unlike you, I don't make accusations without basis. I didn't say you did anything wrong. There is acceptable canvassing. Maybe you should read WP:CANVASS. But it is still canvassing. So my use of the word is entirely correct. Niteshift36 (talk) 02:55, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

• Comment - Chill out above guys. Shadowjams (talk) 00:06, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
• Keep - I don't think it's a 1Event issue, but rather somebody that fits into the fabric of the Old West. Featured in Matt Braun's book Tombstone, and some other biographies. William M. Breakenridge, Richard Maxwell Brown, Helldorado: bringing the law to the mesquite, page 286 also has a description of him of some note. Nearly every Earp biography I'm seeing on Google Books has mention of Stilwell. That, plus the OK Corral involvement is pretty clear notability. It needs more references now, maybe someone should plaster it with {{cn}} notices, but that's not the same as deletion, especially when it's referenced. Shadowjams (talk) 00:06, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

• I never said it was 1E. He was around a number of events, but always a minor player. Oddly, the leade in the bio talks abotu his "more notable" brother, who doesn't have a bio. And you said yourself "mentions" Stilwell. That is trivial coverage. When you have a book with hundreds of pages. The bio has almost nothing in the form of references. If everything that is unreferenced is removed, this will be about 3 lines. Someone so "notable" shouldn't be that hard to find some reliable sources for (not the tripod sites and fan sites).Niteshift36 (talk) 00:13, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

• They do more than mention. For example the reference I bolded above gives a page or two to the coverage. Similarly, I also think it fits into the general tapestry as I explained above. Shadowjams (talk) 00:33, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

• The book is 448 pages. A 'page or two" sure sounds more trivial than significant. Niteshift36 (talk) 01:09, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

• Keep minor compared to the others is still notable. Wyatt is famous, not merely notable, but the others involved in the most famous incident in Western history shouldn;t be negatively affected by that. I do not see what "One event" has to do with this in any sense at all: this is not part of news. This is part of history, and as with many other historical events the exact roles of everybody will remain in dispute indefinitely. Supposing (which is not the case) he were only notable for this event--if the event is of major historical importance to a very wide public it meets the test of historical significance. DGG ( talk ) 02:05, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

• Where does everyone keep coming up with one event? I never based this on one event, especially since I don't believe he was important enough in that one event. This nom is based on a general lack of notability and lack of significant third party coverage, not WP:ONEVENT. Niteshift36 (talk) 02:12, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

It will be interesting to see what happens when you get to Simon of Cyrene with all these arguments. SBHarris 02:18, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

• Keep. Stilwell has a full entry in Encyclopedia of Western Gunfighters by Bill O'Neal; 1. His section is mostly not viewable, but with the other sources it should be enough. Also, he had at least three events, a stagecoach robbery, his suspected (but supported by secondary sources) involvment killing of somebody notable, and his own dramatic death. Look at the detail given just about the condition of his corpse in the O'Neal tertiary source. Abductive (reasoning) 04:51, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

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.