Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Larry N. Jordan

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 keep. Nomination withdrawn after article improvements. (non-admin closure) —SW— chat 15:27, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Larry N. Jordan

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

Puff piece whose author admits to being a friend of the subject; full of unsourced claims that famous people have praised the subject, but all the "sources" are self-published. Orange Mike | Talk 15:11, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawing nomination, due to excellent detective work by my colleague Carrite. The article is still in need of some serious work, but the Editor & Publisher piece in particular puts it in the "weak keep" column, at worst. The alleged quotes from people like the Clintons will have to go, though, unless they can be sourced; as will all the other unsourced claims (and by "sourced" we do not mean "this is what he claims on his masthead"). --Orange Mike | Talk 20:21, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
We'll see if that can be sourced out. I've actually see a H.C. letter on White House stationary with that quote, the words are right and it's not a fabrication. Whether it's an accessible primary source or an inaccessible primary source is unclear to me this evening. As for the B.C. quote, that I know nothing about yet and seems less likely to pass muster. Carrite (talk) 04:14, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - as unsourced BLP. Comment - I will remark that independent published sources ABOUT journalists are notoriously hard to gather and that we need some sort of special inclusion guidelines for these people. I have taken the liberty of removing two of the five flags strewn on top of it — don't bite the newcomers, even if their articles don't pass muster for inclusion. Carrite (talk) 16:52, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I saw your unkind comments about my entry on Larry N. Jordan and it being a "puff piece" but I fail to see the distinction between my entry and most of what I read about people on Wikipedia, which cites their accomplishments, etc. As for your statement I "admit" to being close to the source, let's get one thing clear: I'm not romantically involved, I'm not related to him, I don't have a crush on him. What are you implying exactly? He is a professional colleague, THAT'S ALL, and I think he is deserving of being on Wikipedia. Since I first posted last night I have dug a little deeper and looked up articles at newspaperarchive.com to find out more. Would you prefer that Wikipedia posters have NO knowledge of a subject. What's wrong with knowing the person you're writing about. I have added more specifics to the description but even the links I initially provided -- if you took the time to follow them -- would confirm what I was stating. The link to the magazine website, for example, lists his name as publisher of Midwest Today. His name is on the cover of the book I linked to. What more do you want? Lisa Brown---- — Preceding unsigned comment added by LisaBrown2012 (talk • contribs) 17:41, 9 March 2012‎ (UTC)[reply]
    In fairness text such as "7 million Amazon items sell less copies" does seem more puff than substance. Rich Farmbrough, 16:11, 10 March 2012 (UTC).[reply]
  • Ms. Brown also accidentally posted to my user page (rather than talk), which I will take the liberty of extracting here: "Thank you for responding to the post I am trying to create on Larry N. Jordan. I am really bothered by the comments posted by somebody named OrangeMike about it being a "puff piece." I fail to see the distinction between my entry and most of what I read about people on Wikipedia, which cites their accomplishments, etc. As for his statement I "admit" to being close to the source, what is he implying exactly? Mr. Jordan is a professional colleague, THAT'S ALL, and I think he is deserving of being on Wikipedia. Some of the references I cited as for his work being praised came from the bio his publisher Page Turner Books posted on Amazon. Is a book publisher not credible? Since I first posted last night I have dug a little deeper and looked up articles at newspaperarchive.com to find out more. Would Orangemike prefer that Wikipedia posters have NO knowledge of a subject? What's wrong with knowing the person you're writing about. I have added more specifics to the description but even the links I initially provided -- if anybody took the time to follow them -- would confirm what I was stating. The link to the magazine website, for example, lists his name as publisher of Midwest Today. His name is on the cover of the book I linked to. I am really exasperated with how complicated and time consuming this all is. If you could do anything to help me, I surely would appreciate it. Trying to coach me on how to navigate Wikipedia's super-complicated system is probably futile. I guess I'm just not as smart as all of you. I just thought this guy deserved a Wikipedia listing and so I tried to create one. It may be more trouble than it's worth. Lisa Brown." I'm striking my Delete recommendation and will be getting in touch with her to see if we can get this up to snuff. - Carrite (talk) 17:56, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete Fails WP:AUTHOR (no evidence of being regarded as important by colleagues, no evidence for originating new concept, no well known works) and WP:BIO. One book published by a very minor publisher (vanity press? The interview suggests that he needed "the means to get the book in print" ) does not establish notability - not even if it gets you interviewed in the local newspaper. His work should be included in Jim Reeves biography. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 19:04, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Whether you regard his book as seminal or not, this subject is gonna pass GNG, the Editor and Publisher article on Jordan is a two pager with photo and the Billboard magazine piece interviews Jordan as an expert on the topic of Reeves. And the digging continues... Carrite (talk) 19:29, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I remain unconvinced that it passes GNG - its coverage, but its not significant. With such a definition every academic whose ever given an interview about their field to expertise (most) would be automatically notable - which they aren't. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 19:40, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This is a GNG situation — multiple unrelated but documentable areas of significance. This is not a Special "Author" notability situation, in my opinion. Carrite (talk) 19:48, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • This really is a rush to judgment. The book by Mr. Jordan has been nominated for the prestigious Belmont Award for the Best Book on Country Music in 2011. Google that and see what it tells you about the significance of that achievement. It's by a small press but so were James Joyce, John Grishom, James Redfield, Deepak Chopra, Gertrude Stein, Ezra Pound, et al. Also, Mr. Jordan has made a major contribution to the legacy of country music icon Jim Reeves who sold 180 million records, toured abroad. The Academy of Country Music still bestows a Jim Reeves International Award (current winner Taylor Swift) and since 2003, Mr. Jordan has produced a series of CDs featuring previously unreleased material on Reeves that placed Jim at #1 on radio playlists in the UK in 2008 for seven weeks. I'd say that's a pretty big achievement on an artist dead since 1964. Mr. Jordan is merely a professional acquaintance but ever since I discovered how hard it is to get a listing on Wikipedia without people assailing you and being dismissive before they know all the facts, this has become a real challenge and I have dug deeper and looked further into this man. Furthermore, being the publisher for 20 years of a magazine that according to its website has a 300,000 circulation certainly confers on Mr. Jordan the ability to wield influence. -- Lisa Brown----
Nobody doubts that Jim Reeves is notable, but notability is not inherited. Awards only give notability if actually won. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 19:40, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Seriously? I have had more newpaper articles written about me than that, and it most certainly has not made me notable.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 19:45, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, come on, if you're the subject of coverage in multiple, substantial, independent, reliable sources, you know as well as I do that you pass GNG. Editor and Publisher is a trade magazine, for chrissakes... Don't give me the OTHERSTUFFDOESNTEXIST argument using yourself as the example... Carrite (talk) 19:52, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I am not, I am saying that that kind of coverage is not in fact substantial and that using these criteria basically would negate our entire notability criteria. Everyone would be notable.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 20:03, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
A two page feature story ON a publisher, with a photo, in a trade magazine, is "not in fact substantial"?!?!?!? My friend, you and I are simply not speaking the same language. Fortunately, I believe my interpretation of "substantial" is the one shared by the vast majority of Wikipedians — substantial as in the main subject of a piece, as opposed to "incidental" or "passing" or "fleeting"... Carrite (talk) 20:09, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Being the publisher for 20 years of a regional magazine that has a circulation of 300,000 and also producing a radio show carried by 52 stations certainly makes somebody NOTABLE by any definition of the word. -- Lisa Brown--- — Preceding unsigned comment added by LisaBrown2012 (talk • contribs) 19:55, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"Notability" at Wikipedia has a very narrow meaning. What you are saying is that the subject has a "valid claim to importance" — which is true. Whether he is "notable" in Wikipedia terms is different, that's what this discussion is about. The best thing you can do to prove this is to find other examples of published, substantial, independent pieces on Jordan in reliable sources. There are two very good ones showing already... Carrite (talk) 20:05, 9 March 2012 (UTC) Last edit: Carrite (talk) 04:03, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It still needs major work to clean up, but the sources found by Carrite are sufficient coverage to pass WP:GNG. As a word of advice to you, Carrite and Lisa, I'd suggest you trim it down a lot before you start trying to expand it again with RS. - Jorgath (talk) (contribs) 20:15, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That's probably wise advice. It's a new editor and "finding the range" can be a little tricky in terms of content — not enough vs. too much. There's still work being done, I think it will be a creditable article when we're finished. Carrite (talk) 03:59, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm going for a keep on this one. Jordan may not make the notability criteria for individual areas of activity, but collectively he does, even if it's only by a whisker. And for those active in several fields (to the significance level) a way of tying together that these are the same person is important. Rich Farmbrough, 00:19, 10 March 2012 (UTC).[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:15, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Wow wow wow. What ever happened to Don't bite the newbies!! I've been talking with the creater of the article and they have told me that they have worked with Mr Jordan. They "know" him yes, but I don't believe closely enough that they have made up lies about him. I should point out that the first version of the article was made by copy + paste. This looks like it has been fixed now. I couldn't find any major sources but that also seems to have been fixed now! Just because the page has a few {{Citation needed}} doesn't mean we have to go and delete the thing. And yes I'm angry, Orangemike! I think that you see things that aren't there. Keep the article and work on it. And if something can't be referenced: remove it. Leave the page as a one line stub! But don't delete it! Talk about using a mallet to squash a pea... >:( Starfleet Academy Hail my ship 07:26, 10 March 2012 (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/Larry_N._Jordan&oldid=1137981026"