Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/L. L. Clover

Add links
From 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 NO CONSENSUS. The fact that Louisiana Missionary Baptist Institute and Seminary was deleted rather undercuts most of the keep arguments below, because it can no longer be claimed that he was the founder of a notable institution. On the delete side, the best argument is lack of multiple reliable sources, but there is not consensus support for the belief that there are not sufficient sources to be found (whether or not presently in the article). The consensus below is that the North Louisiana History article should be viewed both as independent and as a reliable source, notwithstanding the fact that its author was the creator of this article (which in and of itself does not create a conflict of interest), so the article is at least verifiable. "No consensus" of course means "feel free to reevaluate", which seems most appropriate here given the close of the related AFD and the at-best borderline notability claim. postdlf (talk) 12:48, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

L. L. Clover

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

Unnotable local pastor. Lacks multiple, non-trival independent sources per WP:BIO.

The article contains five sources. Two local obituaries from 35 years ago, a geocities website page from archive.org, a trival one sentence mention from a local church's website and a local history publication, which appears to be self-promotion. Delete per WP:AUTHOR, which article claims he was an editor.

This article was created by Billy Hathorn (talk · contribs) who authored the local history article: "Billy Hathorn, "Austin Toliver Powers and Leander Louis Clover: Planting the American Baptist Association in Northwest Louisiana during the Middle 20th Century," North Louisiana History, Vol. XLI (Summer-Fall 2010) (the one "independent" article cited in the wikipedia page). This user created several other articles about local churches and people tied to Clover, and cited his own article to prove its notablity. These people and organizations appear to lack notablity. He also created the wikipedia article North Louisiana History. HHaeyyn89 (talk) 21:44, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closing adminstrator. The creator of this article is not naïve, but has been told for years not to create articles about unnotable people. See Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Billy Hathorn and comments like this in 2007: "A number of your articles have been deleted for the policy violations. Yet, your editing behavior in those areas doesn't seem to have changed. Just today you have created several articles on non-notable individuals, some of which appear to be copied straight from the obituary section of a newspaper.... you'd been notified before about this issue of your creating articles for non-notable people...." HHaeyyn89 (talk) 04:19, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as founder of Louisiana Missionary Baptist Institute and Seminary, which is an article itself up for deletion, unfortunately. The publication in North Louisiana History does indeed represent independent, non-trivial, third-party coverage; that the author of that article brought the information to Wikipedia as well is good, not bad, in my estimation. I believe we at Wikipedia should treat seminaries with the same kid gloves that we do secondary schools, but that's an argument I make in another place. Suffice it to say that the initiator of that seminary is notable for that achievement alone, the journal article is a feather in the cap — and this coming from an atheist, so it's not WP:ILIKEIT or WP:IDONTLIKEIT but rather WP:Notability for me. Carrite (talk) 02:12, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The nominator of Louisiana Missionary Baptist Institute and Seminary for deletion is the same editor making this nomination. A startling coincidence, it would seem... Carrite (talk) 02:16, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment As mentioned in my nomination, these articles are all created by the same user for self-promotion, and are nominated next to one another. No coincidence. Nominated because they are unnotable and created by the same person. HHaeyyn89 (talk) 03:29, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The creator of this (Billy Hathorn) article solicited/canvassed Carrite's keep vote. HHaeyyn89 (talk) 03:50, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ha ha ha!!! - Hilarious. My friend, you have got to be kidding me... I found this all by my lonesome, I'm an atheist and I don't give a flying fuck about Christianity, Baptists, missionary baptists, or the founders of missionary baptist seminaries. Here's the deal: I believe in principle and I believe in making the best dictionary possible. Principle, in that we should not be shotgunning to eliminate things we don't like. The best dictionary possible in that we should not be eliminating perfectly useful biographies on a whim. More is more. This is factual stuff, turn the other cheek, as the Christians would advise... Carrite (talk) 01:12, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You can only have good articles if you have good sources. The fact that 10 out of the 19 sources for this come from the creator's own article should give you pause. Also don't pretend to know my beliefs. I simply don't like it when unnotable subjects get created for self-promotion. HHaeyyn89 (talk) 03:38, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If we were talking about an accredited institution, then there wouldn't be an issue and I would agree. The problem is that "unaccredited" can mean virtually anything, good or bad, so 'common outcomes' pretty much makes it clear that you have to have 3rd party references that pass wp:rs. Even one, solid one would be swell. Dennis Brown (talk) 02:08, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
New Comment - The Missionary Baptist seminaries do not seek accreditation from a secular body. They are independent of such regulations. Students entering the schools know that the degrees are recognized only within the denomination itself or a related denomination. Billy Hathorn (talk) 01:48, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Comment - Article creators are perfectly within their rights to participate in deletion debates and there is no obligation on their part to mention their creator status (although it is admittedly a nice touch in the name of full disclosure...) Carrite (talk) 01:17, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
An AFD is not a vote. What secondary sources show this subject is notable? I do notice your editting Billy Hathorn's other articles now too. Why?HHaeyyn89 (talk) 03:54, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - To improve them, perhaps? My question is this, since we are now well into the game of impugning motives: why have you nominated FOUR articles by this user for deletion? Are you stalking him? Carrite (talk) 01:52, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I nominated three articles (a school, a person and a publication) written by one creator who bases the articles on his own publication. In fact, I linked to the publication in the nomination on this page (did you miss it?). This user is promoting his work by creating articles about subjects that lack third-party sources. If this is notable then there will be sources for it, beyong Billy's article. HHaeyyn89 (talk) 03:38, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I think the coverage in North Louisiana History is enough to satisfy notability here. I would also respectfully advise the nominator to limit his comments here to the content of the articles and their notability (or lack thereof) rather than the users that have edited them. (WP:ATTP) Qrsdogg (talk) 15:30, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Not sure I agree that being covered by a single regional source passes WP:V & WP:RS, considering it is itself up for AFD. Assuming it passes AFD, that still doesn't mean it would qualify as a reliable source via WP:RS, only that it would be "notable" (for example, many blogs are WP:N "notable" but not considered reliable sources). If there was several sources from "smaller" publications that were independent (even if not notable themselves) then I wouldn't really have a concern. Or even a single coverage in a unquestionable WP:RS source. The problem, from my perspective, is that several articles almost make a "ring" that rely on each other for sourcing, without any outside, independent coverage. The COI issues don't make a reason for delete, but when the primary source is a book (that itself won't pass WP:BOOK or WP:RS), then there is a real, demonstrated lack of ability to verify the claims. Since we are talking about a biography, the bar is a little higher than, say, a sports bar or publication. I don't think anyone questions the person existed, but any material that can't be verified through independence sources can (and honestly, should) be removed, and it makes it impossible to prove notability. Dennis Brown (talk) 01:39, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't really buy the idea that this article is unverifiable. I'm inclined to view NLH as a Reliable Source ("third-party, published source with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy") since it's edited by an academic historian and not associated with the subject of the article in any obvious way (other than being from the same state). Qrsdogg (talk) 03:33, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The article claims he was known for being an editor for his church, which means the guideline for notablity is WP:AUTHOR. The problem is even if you accept the local publication (despite the conflict of the interest) to demonstrate notablity, that means the only sources you have are the social security index, two local obituaries from 35 years ago, and a defunct a geocities website page. Other than that one local source, we don't have information about his authorship, work and so on.
How can you have an article about an editor without more several non-trival sources about him? How about sources about what the article claims, his editorship? A notable paper editor would have had people write about his work. Yet, the only thing found is a wikipedia's editor's local history paper. This subject fails every step of WP:AUTHOR. HHaeyyn89 (talk) 16:32, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
A few things: 1. It really don't bother me much that a Wikipedian authored one of the works cited here. Citing oneself is really only a problem if it involves a POV dispute. 2. Usually I would like to see more sources than this, but given the obscurity of the subject (1950s Northern Louisiana) I'm willing to be less demanding-given the position that he held as the founder of a college and the difficulty of digging up old newspapers. 3. I think you have explained your view on this issue sufficiently, repeating yourself further may not be a good use of your time. Qrsdogg (talk) 17:13, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:53, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:53, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:54, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep  Clover founded a seminary–which seminary is a major academic institution for members of the American Baptist Association of 2000 churches.  Having 54 students in 1972, this is by seminary standards a large seminary.  The action of founding a seminary has a long-lasting effect on society, as is shown by the careers of graduates of this seminary.  For example, one graduate likewise founded a seminary.  Clover also founded a bookstore, wrote books, and founded a newsletter.

    Regarding related guidelines, WP:Notability (people) states, "The topic of an article should be notable, or 'worthy of notice'; that is, 'significant, interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded'", which certainly applies to L. L. Clover. WP:Notability (people) further states, "Many ...scholars (collectively referred to as "academics" for convenience) are notably influential in the world of ideas without their biographies being the subject of secondary sources."  Many of the criteria in Wikipedia:Notability (academics) are aimed at research professors, and routine positions like president of a university, so while relevant need to be read in the context of an individual whose impact on society is not just as an academic but as a founder of the academic institution itself.  Unscintillating (talk) 12:06, 16 April 2011 (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/L._L._Clover&oldid=1068863258"