Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thomas E. Caldecott

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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:06, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas E. Caldecott

[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)

Unsourced article that doesn't pass WP:GNG. Walk Like an Egyptian (talk) 08:10, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:12, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:12, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:12, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Article is sourced properly and satisfies WP:POLITICIAN. ShoesssS ^Talk 10:09, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

While Thomas E. Caldecott was not a state politician, he was a Mayor of Berkeley who received statewide recognition for his leadership role in getting the major highway tunnel in the San Francisco Bay Area which was subsequently named for him constructed. The naming of the Caldecott Tunnel alone demonstrates the public recognition of notability. WP:POLOUTCOMES This is significant not just historically, but also contemporarily given the major status of this tunnel regionally and as a key link in the statewide highway system. People will be curious about who this person is for whom the tunnel was named, and Wikipedia is one of the information sources they may consult. Tmangray (talk) 19:08, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Would it be the best course of action to merge with the tunnel's article? It would really be a matter of transferring a paragraph or so. Best, GPL93 (talk) 19:12, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Strong DeleteIt is in no way properly sourced. None of the 3 sources, one of which is an untitled and unlinked local newspaper article and another of which is primary, are used in line. Best, GPL93 (talk) 17:13, 22 March 2019 (UTC) Changing my vote to MERGE with the Caldecott Tunnel. We can add a paragraph explaining who he is and why the tunnel is named after him. This article just doesn't stand up on its own in my opinion, maybe it could if it was truly sourced besides a list of county administrators, an untitled and unlinked local newspaper article, and an article about his pharmacy gaining landmark status. Best, GPL93 (talk) 19:24, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I’m sorry, am I misinterpreting WP:POLITICIAN where it states that; “…The following are presumed to be notable:•Politicians and judges who have held international, national or sub-national (statewide/provincewide) office, and members or former members of a national, state or provincial legislature.[12] This also applies to persons who have been elected to such offices but have not yet assumed them". Appreciate showing me where I am wrong. Every day is a learning experience. No snarky remarks meant here. ShoesssS ^Talk 17:32, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In terms of political experience. His son, Thomas William Caldicott, meets the standards of WP:NPOL by virtue of serving in the California state assembly, but Thomas E. Caldicott did not hold a statewide office or serve in a state legislature. Best, GPL93 (talk) 17:40, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Caldecott never served in the state legislature. His son did. Bearcat (talk) 19:03, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The highest office this person held is mayor of a midsized city — which means that he could have an article if he could be referenced well enough to clear WP:NPOL #2 ("major local political figures who have received significant press coverage"), but it isn't a strong enough notability claim to guarantee him an article in the absence of solid sourcing. Mayors are no longer automatically presumed notable just because the city they were mayor of eventually surpassed an arbitrary population cutoff — the notability test for a mayor is the ability to write and source a substantive article about his political impact, not just the ability to verify the names of his wife and kids, so one obituary in the local newspaper upon his death is not enough sourcing to get a mayor over the bar all by itself. Bearcat (talk) 19:03, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's not just that he was Mayor of the City of Berkeley. Strictly speaking, it isn't even that he was a politican at all, but that he was a key person involved with the construction of a major highway tunnel who recieved recognition for that fact from the State of California. Sourcing that notability is not a problem that can't be addressed without resorting to the drastic step of article deletion. Tmangray (talk) 19:15, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Having a piece of transportation infrastructure named after him is not an automatic notability freebie for a mayor either — at least half, if not more, of everybody who was ever mayor of anywhere at all has had something (a building, a street, a bridge, etc.) named after them somewhere, so that being true here isn't a free exemption from having to have enough coverage to clear NPOL #2. If better sources exist to get him over NPOL #2, then by all means bring 'em on — but mayors aren't automatically exempted from having to show more sourcing than this just because they had stuff named after them, and they aren't kept just because somebody says better sources exist that haven't been shown. The inclusion test for a mayor has far less to do with the things the article says than it has to do with the quality and depth and volume of the referencing that's present to support the things the article says. Bearcat (talk) 20:35, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I'm not weighing in on whether to delete or keep this article, but Bearcat, it should be noted that Mayor of Berkeley is actually this person's second-highest office. This person's highest office was as a member of the Alameda County Board of Supervisors. That being said, it doesn't change the standards of notability that apply. Your arguments (and Tmangray's arguments) are unchanged substantively even when swapping the word "mayor" for "county supervisor" instead. OCNative (talk) 09:03, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"Notability is based on the existence of suitable sources, not on the state of sourcing in an article" WP:NEXIST Tmangray (talk) 18:13, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The key to making that a compelling argument in an AFD discussion is not just to say it. We don't keep badly sourced articles just because somebody idly speculates that the necessary depth of sourcing might exist to get him over the bar — NEXIST only comes into play if somebody shows hard evidence that the necessary depth of sourcing definitely does exist. If nobody shows the actual results of an actual search for sources, then we do not keep a poorly sourced article just because somebody tried to invoke NEXIST — turning the tide requires you to actually show evidence that enough better sources do exist to get him over the bar. And no, CDOT's own internal corporate newsletter about its own internal affairs is not the kind of sourcing we're looking for either. Bearcat (talk) 16:59, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep in a matter of minutes I managed to drum up two interesting sources for this individual--not bad for someone born in 1878. There may be some editing issues that need to take place, but I see no reason not to assume good faith that the content of the article is accurate at this point. It appears to be an article worth some attention and the individual seems to have had an impact on politics and the roads in California. Notability speaks to WP:IMPACT and the breadth of independent sources have provided significant coverage of the individual, in my eyes enough to pass WP:GNG so there it is.--Paul McDonald (talk) 19:52, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

People get notable by having media coverage in newspapers, not by getting covered in corporate or organizational newsletters or named in transcripts of legislative speeches. There's still not a single GNG-eligible source being cited here at all except the obituary. Bearcat (talk) 17:12, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Newspapers are not the only source: books, television, radio, legitimate online news services... just to name a few. WP:GNG states "Sources should be secondary sources, as those provide the most objective evidence of notability." And WP:PUBLISHED states that the source may only need be a "reputable party". The two sources I added are both reputable and objective. It would be nice if a local researcher would look into offline sources for additional impact, but at this point I don't see that as necessary because I believe WP:GNG has been achieved from the sources in the article and others found in basic searches.--Paul McDonald (talk) 18:38, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tymon.r Do you have any questions? 21:50, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the sourcing is not to reliable 3rd party sources, it is press releases and the like, which does not pass GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:13, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Question which of the sources do you consider not "reliable" and "press releases" ??? I see coverage in newspapers, books, etc. I don't see any sources in the article that are just "press releases". I could have missed them... please elaborate.--Paul McDonald (talk) 14:17, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I have added more sources (yes, newspapers, as well as a book). There are plenty of secondary sources, and it is clear from articles in 1937, 1951 and 1960 that he was acknowledged as "the man responsible for the success" of the Broadway Low Level Tunnel project. It was a major project, with a very large cost for the time, and the original contractors were unable to complete it so it had to be retendered - this is in the sources I have added, though I did not add that information to this article, assuming it would be in the tunnel article (though I see that it's not). That is why he is described as having fought for it, championed it, put untiring effort into it, etc. I don't have access to all newspapers, eg not the Berkeley Gazette, otherwise I would add inline citations to the obituary it published. I think there is enough for him to meet WP:BASIC, but if the article is not kept, I would recommend merging to Caldecott Tunnel, so that his role in its construction is recognised. RebeccaGreen (talk) 14:00, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep WP:HEYMANN upgrades during AfD make clear that this old-time pol has solid sources, real impact and demonstrable notability.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:22, 5 April 2019 (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.