- 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. With due respect to John Lambert's oppose which seems to be based on certain inferences somewhat at odds with our verifiability policy, the consensus here seems to be tending towards keep. (non-admin closure) Lourdes 15:53, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
AfDs for this article:
((Special:Prefixindex/Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/((SUBST:Brown Harwood))))
- Brown Harwood (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Article relies on only one source which is a blog. See WP:BLOGS Eric Cable ! Talk 14:39, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks. I thought I did it right. Eric Cable ! Talk 17:17, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep the "blog" in question cites numerous reliable sources. The subject, who served as vice-president (imperial klazik) of the national Ku Klux Klan in the mid-1920s, is mentioned in numerous secondary sources as well. See [1] and [2] for two examples.
- Then the article should reference the original sources, not the blog, correct? If the article is properly cited I would support non-deletion. Eric Cable ! Talk 17:17, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- The site uses photos of newspaper articles. Per WP:OSO, "There is no distinction between using online versus offline sources. Offline sources are just as legitimate as those that are accessible to everyone online. If offline sources, even exclusively offline sources, are used to reference an article, we give the creator (and other contributors) the benefit of the doubt in accepting their accuracy." So unless you have "definitive proof or knowledge that these sources are really fictitious", the article should be kept.--TM 13:56, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:18, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:18, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment, some of the books Harwood appears in include The Ku Klux Klan in the Southwest, The Ku Klux Klan in the City, 1915-1930, The Ku Klux Klan in Western Pennsylvania, 1921–1928, Hooded Americanism: The History of the Ku Klux Klan, whether these contribute to notability or are deemed mentions/snips, i will leave to other editors. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:24, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Possible keep -- KKK is (or was) an obnoxious organisation, but potentially its leaders may have been notable as its organisers. I do not know enough to judge which side of notability this individual falls. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:34, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. I'm tempted to say the VP (Imperial Klazik) of the national Klan, as well as being the prior Grand Dragon in Texas - in the 1920s Klan (when this was a major organization) - passes WP:SOLDIER(2) - however a simple BEFORE shows this individual passes GNG with quite a few books covering him. The cited blog also seems to be citing RSes itself.Icewhiz (talk) 23:12, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Wikipedia is built on verrifiability, and the sourcing here does not pass GNG. Appearing in contemporary newspapers is not how we show someone from 100 years ago was notable. What needs to be shown is secondary sourcing, and 100 year old news papers do not cut it. What needs to be shown is reliable sources since that have discussed this person and put them as a significant figure in historical context. Short of that, which we are here, a blog does not show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:26, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Are you arguing that newspapers are not "how we show someone was notable"? That newspapers are not secondary? That using sources from a century ago "do not cut it" in terms of adequate sourcing? These may be your personal opinions, but they're not grounded in WP:RS. The guidelines are clear.--TM 21:25, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually - century old newspaper accounts would probably be considered PRIMARY. However, this individual does have secondary non-newspaper coverage - as evident in a google books search.Icewhiz (talk) 03:11, 23 July 2018 (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.