Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Earl Denman

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. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 15:03, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Earl Denman

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Inadequately sourced biography of a mountain climber. The strongest notability claim here, that he unsuccessfully attempted to climb Mount Everest, is not "inherently" notable in the absence of a WP:GNG-worthy volume of reliable source coverage about him, but the references here (which are just contextlessly listed rather than being properly used to actually footnote content) are just his own self-published memoir and a bunch of books that glancingly namecheck his existence without being about him to any non-trivial degree. Nothing in the article is inherently notable enough to exempt him from having to have a lot more sourcing than this. Bearcat (talk) 15:14, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 15:14, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 15:14, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Google search finds this Maclean's article from 1964 which appears to be about him and not by him. Perhaps a merge/redirect to Timeline_of_Mount_Everest_expeditions#1947 would be appropriate. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 17:28, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 21:16, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — Per rationale by Bearcat. GNG simply isn’t met. Celestina007 (talk) 15:13, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Huge WP:BEFORE failure from Bearcat and User:Celestina007. He easily meets GNG, and I've added 12 references from 1947 to a few weeks ago, many of which are significant. Nfitz (talk) 00:55, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You do realize that archival referencing repair work is literally 99 per cent of everything I do on here, making "WP:BEFORE failure by Bearcat" not a thing that exists in reality? With the accusation being even funnier because it came while I was literally in the middle of working on retrieving archival referencing for a new article, because that's what I do? Kindly read WP:ADHOM, particularly the part about not flinging around accusations of another editor's perceived failure to BEFORE. Bearcat (talk) 01:19, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. Also I can't find the word BEFORE in that article. The guy is mentioned every time there's a Canadian attempt on Everest. I recall reading in the 1980s some of the articles I found (many of which I didn't include, because I was hitting WP:REFBOMB territory). And it was dead easy to find numerous references in the usual easy places. I can't even begin to fathom how you did a before, and still nominated this article. I don't know what you do - I think I've seen your name before, but I pay little attention to names. but I've seen your name attached to poor nominations, before, such as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hermann Leiningen (2nd nomination), which I note you did about 4 minutes before this one (making me wonder how you had enough time to Before). Note that pointing out another editors errors, and what they can do to avoid them, isn't a personal attack. But making false accusation of personal attacks IS a personal attack. Instead of the TLDNR description of your accomplishments. User:Bearcat, why not simply withdraw the flawed nominations here and at Leiningen - which I didn't even bother putting a Keep on, because it was snowing. Nfitz (talk) 01:48, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies; WP:ATTP lists ADHOM as a shortcut in its shortcuts box, but in fact that shortcut actually leads somewhere different than advertised, and thus misled me into providing the wrong shortcut here. (But that's not fundamentally my failure, it's the failure of whoever put ADHOM in the shortcuts box for a document it isn't a shortcut to.) So WP:ATTP is actually the thing you need to read — and make no mistake, you do need to read it.

If you think I don't know how to do archival research, then check out Canadian Screen Award for Best Reality/Competition Series, where there's only one year out of 18 that I've had any trouble finding a citable media source (as opposed to primary sourcing that verifies the facts but isn't suitable for use as a footnote) for the nominees, and 17 years out of 18 where I cited a total of 33 references. Then consider the following partial selection of articles I've done reference repair on this year alone: Venture (TV series), John Livingston (naturalist), Definition (game show), Tom Allen (broadcaster), Wilma Pelly, Michelle Sweeney. (And that's not even all I've done, it's just a handful that I could easily recall off the top of my head.)

And as for the timing of anything, kindly note that people can, and are allowed to, do things in the order refcheck-refcheck-refcheck-refcheck followed by nom-nom-nom-nom, rather than necessarily having to go refcheck-nom refcheck-nom refcheck-nom refcheck-nom — so the timestamps on any two unrelated pages are not proof of negligence either.

My well-established and well-earned reputation for being a conscientious and reference-oriented creator of quality content speaks for itself, and I don't have any responsibility to own or accept your opinions of my editing skills. Bearcat (talk) 04:38, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, interesting, ADHOM was changed as per WP:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 March 12#Wikipedia:Ad hominem; I've edited WP:ATADD to fix. I'll note that I didn't actually violate WP:ATTP until you rewrote ATTP last night - which I don't think was the intent! :) I know little of your reputation. That's not a factor in commenting. I don't even notice who nominated it until I cut and paste the ping in. But surely that means that you of all people should have done a proper Before. Sure, if I find a hard-to-find referenced deep in Archive.com, or somewhere in an off-line Elbonian newspaper - then criticizing a Before is not necessary. But when it's someone I've actually heard of, and the references are very easy to find in Proquest, Gale, and newspapers.com (I didn't look any further other than Google) I don't think that there's anything wrong with criticizing a before. Gosh, why the easy-to-Google recent Canadian Geographic article from an issue still on the newsstands wasn't a warning sign, almost 75-years after the event I don't know ... I'm AGFing, and NPA ... but that doesn't mean I think the Before was good enough.

But back to the issue at hand. Surely this nomination should be withdrawn? Nfitz (talk) 21:04, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 23:08, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:HEY. The sources found by Nfitz are more than adequate to pass the GNG. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 05:29, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I favour keeping the article. I think Denman is notable because, at the time when he made his attempt on Everest, any attempt was rare and notable. Manormadman (talk) 09:46, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Being bold and relisting this one more time to garner insight from more experienced editors.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 17:37, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - seems as notable as other attempts before 1953, but also specifically: "Two Sherpas (one of whom was Tenzing Norgay,[6] later to make the first ascent of Everest) joined his attempt." Cheers, Facts707 (talk) 02:00, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Subject easily passes WP:GNG and the article has historical importance. Sajankc (talk) 09:10, 14 June 2021 (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.