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. There is coverage, but views differ on whether it is sufficient. I do not think that relisting is likely to change this. JohnCD (talk) 22:23, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Frederick Charles Bothwell, Jr.[edit]

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

Subject does not appear to be notable per WP:ANYBIO and WP:SOLDIER; fails WP:GNG. Specifically, although the subject has been the recipients of notable awards the awards themselves (although well known) are not significant, this is further expanded upon through the first and second criteria in SOLDIER. The subject civilian career although long is not sufficiently notable in and of itself, even though he received an obituary in the New York Times. Other then the New York Times Obit there are no other significant coverage in other reliable sources for events during the subject's military or civilian careers or significant coverage in books. There is passing mention of the subject's military career of where the subject was stationed in a directory form, but nothing that would meet "Significant Coverage" as set forth in GNG. Now if the subject's Obit is the primary significant coverage it is possible that the death would fall under WP:EVENT, and the death itself does not pass WP:EFFECT. The subject's service is commendable and should be honored, but unfortuntly it is my opinion that the subject's life is not notable. If the primary editor wishes to Userfy the article, I would not object to such action. RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 22:00, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 22:15, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 22:15, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 22:15, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 22:15, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak~~ Keep~~Delete~~ per nom. It's aggravating when one has to register a delete !vote for an article where one feels in one's water that it ought to be kept but all guidelines are just against that. If citations appear to assert sufficient notability, the closer of this discussion is welcome to reverse my !vote if I have not returned in time. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 23:18, 15 March 2012 (UTC)The line in the NY Times Obit does it for me apart from the fact of the obit: "he was among the youngest full colonels in the Army", and thus I have changed my mind Fiddle Faddle (talk) 20:11, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I haven't decided yet. I added a few references to the article. There are actually quite a few Gnews hits about his time in New York government service, but most of them are behind paywalls. Part of the problem is that the article is so unencyclopedic in style, all cluttered up with pretty pictures of medals and such. Overall I doubt if the notability is sufficient, but I may look further. --MelanieN (talk) 15:32, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete I've found nothing that would suggest being notable per WP:SOLDIER. Being head of the liquor authority probably is the key to notability. But, the only things I've found was Bothwell being briefly mentioned or articles where quotes by him were used related to the liquor authority. So, nothing yet that seems notable. Hopefully MelanieN can dig something up. Bgwhite (talk) 22:36, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've come around to Delete. I think the references I have added are all I am going to find, and they don't really add up to significant coverage - just announcements of his appointment to the office, or quotes from him in his official capacity. By and large you wouldn't expect the head of a state agency to necessarily be notable, and while he seems to have had a fine military record, we unfortunately have pretty high criteria here for soldiers. (Now if he had been a baseball player.... SNARK). --MelanieN (talk) 23:37, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This maybe true, but consensus at MILHIST has come up with SOLDIER for notability. However, if it can be found through a reliable source that the subject:

Played an important role in a significant military event; or

Commanded a substantial body of troops in combat

there maybe grounds for me to withdraw my AfD. Being a full bird Colonel may have lead to the subject having commanded a substantial body of troops (for what constitutes substantial see WP:MILUNIT) during combat, but we would need a RS to verify that. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 01:47, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. An obituary in a major newspaper such as the New York Times is sufficient for notability. -- Necrothesp (talk) 18:32, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The only thing about the obit, is that it is amazingly short (some 7 brief sentences). Now whether one believes that constitutes "significant coverage" as required by WP:GNG is a matter of opinion. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 21:48, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've had time to do a little research. Unfortunately much is behind paywalls but there is sufficient in WP:RS albeit so far all from the New York Times, to suggest to me that the gentleman is notable and that the notability is verifiable. He is not just a soldier. His Civil Defense Authority work (Now cited in the article) is notable, and may well surpass that as head of the Liquor Authority. There is an article behind a paywall that may link his headship of the Liquor Authority to communist witch hunts, too.

The article is poor quality, but we can all tidy a bad article up. I'd rather leave it as it is for a while and have folk attempt citations that throw the baby out with the bathwater. I've added a couple more searches to the head of this AfD which may be useful. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 20:34, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The link you added only identifies him as the "assistant deputy director" of the New York Civil Defense Commission. I know from Google News listings that he was later named the head of the commission, but I couldn't find a citable article. Maybe you can. I do think he is on the edge of notability. --MelanieN (talk) 20:47, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The paywall is the challenge here. The abstract appears to show things about his role, not just that he had the role. But we have multiple pieces of coverage in a WP:RS qualifying source. That of itself renders him notable, and for more than one event. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 20:50, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Remember, GNG states, "Significant coverage means that sources address the subject directly in detail". He is mentioned in multiple articles, but not in detail. Only article in detail is the obituary, but that is one source. I want to say keep too, but with no mulptile sources that go into detail, I can't say keep just yet. Bgwhite (talk) 21:14, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Quote "A detailed plan for the protection of industrial plants was offered to business management last week by Col. Frederick C. Bothwell, assistant deputy director of the New York State Civil Defense Commission." seems to me to be detailed. Not quite sufficient, perhaps. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 21:21, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the usual consensus at AfD is that merely being mentioned or quoted, "so-and-so said such-and-such," does NOT constitute significant coverage of so-and-so. The sentence you cite is a perfect example of what WP:Notability (people) calls trivial coverage, namely, "a mention in passing ("John Smith at Big Company said..." or "Mary Jones was hired by My University") that does not discuss the subject in detail." The "basic criteria" paragraph explains that "If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may not be sufficient to establish notability." That was my problem with the sources I found too; they basically reported that he had been named to a position, but didn't say anything more about him. --MelanieN (talk) 00:29, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: the following Keep vote from the author of the article was posted on the article's talk page. --MelanieN (talk) 18:12, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Objection to proposed deletion

I'm totally unfamiliar with the correct method for conducting this discussion, but I wish to object to the proposed deletion of the article about my father, Frederick Charles Bothwell, Jr. which I wrote some time ago and have maintained since.

That proposal is evidently based on a perceived failure to meet the standards of suitable prominence for either military or civilian subjects.

I would point out the following points made in the article (and mostly documented in the NYT Obituary)which, to me, seem to meet the requisite criteria:

MILITARY: He was at one time the youngest Colonel in the US Army Air Force and he played a prominent role in at least two significant military events: 1. As the commander of the unit providing Ordnance (weapons and ammunition support) for the AAF base at Grenier Field, NH, which was a point of departure for 5,000 heavy bombers and 50,000 aircrew members en route to the War in Europe. He also was a senior member of the US liasion group assigned to duty in Yugoslavia to coordinate recovery of downed US, French, and British airmen and escaping POWs. His service was recognized by two of the highest allied awards allowed to US personnel: the OBE (Mil) and the Croix de Guerre avec Palme CDG: "The medal is awarded to those who have been "mentioned in despatches", meaning a heroic deed or deeds were performed" OBE (Mil):"From 1940, a person could be appointed a Commander, Officer or Member of the Order of the British Empire for gallantry, for acts of bravery (not in the face of the enemy) which were below the level required for the George Medal",

CIVILIAN: Following the war he was appointed to two of the highest level staff jobs in NY State Governmental: 1. Director of NY State Civil defense - responsible for managing Civil Defense plans to enable NY State (then the most populous state) to survive the nuclear holocaust of an anticipated attack by the Soviet Union during the Cold War 2. Chief Executive of the NY State Liquor Authority - an office responsible for maintaining the highest standards of integrity in the regulation of one of the most challenging areas of State supervision 3. His obituary was published in the NY Times, a sign of some professional prominence among editors and readers of the NY Times.

Please be patient with my lack of knowledge of Wikipedia editorial process, and let me know if this explanation is an adequate justification for retention of the article in question, or how it might be otherwise retained on the site. Frebo3 (talk) 13:24, 14 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.