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. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 23:29, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jack Agnew

Jack Agnew (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)

Another "memorial" style article culled primarily from various obituaries published after his recent death. Wikipedia is not a memorial nor obituary archive, nor is it a news site (see WikiNews for that. Agnew has had no significant coverage in any reliable sources, with the bulk of the article sources from[1]:

  1. IMDB (not reliable)
  2. an obituary
  3. a single page on a self-proclaimed "premiere" military history article (even so, still a single article is NOT significant coverage)
  4. a random memorial site for "Will Bill Guarnere" published by his kids
  5. a second obituary
  6. the memorial site written by Agnew's daughter

The bulk of the article is random gushy rewording of the orbituary (WP:NPOV issues), and focuses more on the HBO series Band of Brothers, a series about Agnew's army UNIT which does not, in fact, have him as a character and even his own daughter doesn't know if he was even a loose basis for any character in it. Being the basis for the series makes him notable, but as he is not actually any part of the series nor did he have any major part of the unit, the Agnew clearly fails WP:BIO and WP:N. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 13:23, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is considered polite to indicate you are the article creator when proclaiming keep. The obit being in large papers does not make him notable. It is still just an obit. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 13:45, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
WP:GHITS? What particularly notability do you see beyond the obituaries being repeated? Please be more specific. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 14:16, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Although the article was created after Mr. Agnew passed away, I don't see this as a case of a violation of the bar against memorials. Sometimes, one doesn't learn of past recognition until the news of the person's death comes out. In this case, Mr. Agnew was notable enough [2] and [3] that he received notice for his work during the Second World War. Mandsford (talk) 15:23, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That book was written by Jake McNiece...the leader of said troop. Can his biography give Agnew notability just for being mentioned in the man's stories about his unit? -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 15:48, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I'd take obituaries in mainstream media as themselves evidence of notability (and they are often decent sources as well). But for other kinds of sources, he's mentioned a decent number of times throughout ISBN 1932033122 also (doesn't appear to currently be referenced in the article, but could be used to improve it). --Delirium (talk) 15:26, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That book was written by Jake McNiece...the leader of said troop. Can his biography give Agnew notability just for being mentioned in the man's stories about his unit? -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 15:48, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I share the original poster's apparent frustration with articles that get written from obituaries, which share two flaws: (1) this person apparently wasn't notable enough in life to warrant a Wikipedia article (or, apparently, any other); I don't see how his/her death changes that; (2) obits have a remarkable tendency to be one-sided, and thus aren't good sources for balanced articles (see "gushy" above). In addition, this article dwells overly on the popular-media ripples possibly emanating from a real person's life; Wikipedia isn't a catalogue of popular culture (although it sometimes looks like it). Furthermore, the article is not well-written; my 9th-grade English teacher would rip it to shreds.--Piledhigheranddeeper (talk) 16:14, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
While sharing these concerns, I have to question a hard rule against obituary evidence, and the suggestion that somebody must have an article BEFORE THEY DIE to warrant one after death. That would create a situation in which important 'behind the scenes' persons are excluded from mention because their actions were deliberately or accidentally obscure before being unearthed by historians. --Wragge (talk) 17:37, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Were this a hard-and-fast rule, I'd agree. A "before they die" limitation on Wikipedia would, taken to its extreme, omit Copernicus and others who died before Wikipedia was invented. Some flexibility is called for in cases of people whose notability was obscured/delayed by accident or design, but this guy isn't one of those.--Piledhigheranddeeper (talk) 11:33, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The nominator themselves explained why this article should be kept: "article culled primarily from various obituaries published after his recent death". Rule one of Wikipedia:Notability states: "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article." Ergo if a person has obituaries in newspapers of note, they are notable: Even though the LA Times id the only one that is currently in the article, his death (and therefore his life) was recorded elsewhere around the world, such as in The Daily Telegraph in Britain.--Jackyd101 (talk) 17:15, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Obituaries are not significant coverage, they are reprints of press releases made by the family. And no, having it in any particular papers doesn't make it more notable. He died. They sent out press releases, it made good copy, it ran. He was not notable before, and Wikipedia is not a news site (which is all this article is - a repeat of the same story repeated around the obits). As I said in my nom, he requires SIGNIFICANT coverage, not just news organizations repeating the published obit at the time of his death. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 17:24, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That may be true in the USA, but in Britain that is completely wrong - obituaries in the four newspapers of record (Telegraph, Times, Guardian and Independant) are written by specialist staff writers who often prepare them years in advance. The families of the people represented do not have any input at all on the process and having an obituary printed in one of these newspapers has been an indication of notability in Britain for centuries.--Jackyd101 (talk) 20:01, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And you have the proof and sources that show that this is both true and accurate in this exact case? Despite the obit clearly noting it is a reprint of the original Los Angeles obit? -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 20:05, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't note that at all, it says it is written in LA by Nick Allen, presumably their correspondent there, while the AP article that you claim is insufficient is by Ron Todt. If you read the two, you'll note that the text is different in each article. Two articles in two reputable newspapers on different sides of the world looks like pretty good coverage to me. --Jackyd101 (talk) 20:15, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, you are right, they are two different authors, in the same state. Again, please provide some actual verification to your claim that the Telegraph considered Agnew so notable, that Allen wrote this obit years in advance, and that his obit is not just a rewording of the same obit everyone else rewrote but actually the reporter and papers own research and content. The text being "different" doesn't mean they aren't the same. And, again, WP:NOTNEWS. They are repeats of the obit, plain and simple. No one talked about him before he died, no one has talked about him since reposting the obit. That is not notability, its random human interest pieces. Or better yet, show actual significant coverage of him as a person, rather than claiming that because his obit was reprinted and rewritten a few times, he is now instantly notable. Or shall we also have coverage on Charles the Cat just because the Telegraph happened to reword the original stories[4] -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 20:47, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I can't provide the things you ask, but i still think there is enough to confer notability in this case.--Jackyd101 (talk) 21:21, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This was created eleven days after he died. You aren't notable temporarily, you're notable or you're not. They have obituaries for everyone who dies, and I don't think it being repeated makes it notable. Rin tin tin (talk) 21:42, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You do realize that he was not in the film, nor is he even a character in the film, right? His UNIT was the basis for the film, and he himself was not the basis for any character in it. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 13:26, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete: I'm well-divided on this one, but with the referenceing of obituaries aside, I don't think he has the notability. He was a member of a unit that inspired fictional media... just not really enough for me (perhaps if it was him directly, or if the inspiration was much more closely based on reality). Then, I do agree that a person who wasn't notable in life is generally not notable in death, no matter who publishes an obit (with the obvious exception of historical figures who predate the encyclopedia). I'm not convinced at all that an obituary qualifies as significant coverage anyway; I'd see it that most of the individuals who are notable after death are covered by something more qualifying than an obit, such as a biography or a study of what made that person notable (for example, Shakespeare was fairly obscure outside of the poetry and playwright community until well after his death, but his notability is indisputably not culled from obituaries; likewise with Poe and Picasso). bahamut0013wordsdeeds 12:07, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep — appears to satisfy WP:NOTABILITY threshold. Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 14:26, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
How? -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 04:40, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Has 3,981 hits as of April 22.Billy Hathorn (talk) 04:25, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Again, so what? -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 04:40, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What notable award did he receive? What widely recognized contribution? His obituary being reprinted is NOT hundreds of news articles. His being talked about for a brief moment only after he died is NOT notability. It's news which is already old and stale. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 13:26, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
4,234 hits now as of April 25. It can be nominated for that special category with 5,000. If the number of hits do not matter, why do we keep the tabulation?Billy Hathorn (talk) 05:06, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
For the last time, number of hits to the article don't have anything to do with the whether the topic is notable. Wikipedia is NOT a popularity contest, and hits are the most easily manipulated numbers in the world. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 13:28, 27 April 2010 (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.
Allikas: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Jack_Agnew
No tags for this post.