Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Doug Ralph

< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion
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. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 00:33, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Doug Ralph

edit
Doug Ralph (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No real assertion of notability; insufficient coverage in reliable sources. Frickeg (talk) 22:49, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, Doug is a figure who is recently deceased and this can colour opinions of a person's standing. However, he was a significant contributor to environmental action in the Castlemaine and Central Goldfields area. He was a well recognised Castlemaine identity. He is a published author as the article shows. He has been a candidate in several elections, one at the Federal level, gaining significant percentage of votes for the Greens party in some cases above the average for the state.

As the article is unfinished and I have further to add which will make a case for his inclusion in Wikipedia, may I ask that this deletion be at least delayed until more data is presented? Thank you for your consideration, James McArdle sinarau (talk) 23:20, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    • Taking into account the fact that the subject is recently deceased, there still isn't really much assertion of serious notability in the article. To clarify the author thing: he is a self-published co-author. Frickeg (talk) 00:33, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 00:02, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(from article author) I have checked the biography rules concerning notability and believe Doug Ralph fulfils the Basic Criteria of Notability.

  • After checking the new references I have added it is clear his ideas and work are referenced by a number of sources including the newspaper The Bendigo Advertiser (other news article refs. to come), and by other environmentalists and environmental organisations.
  • I have removed category "Australian Politicians" as it has been a distraction in this discussion - he is most significant as an environmentalist and motivated by that role to join the Greens. Assessment of the standing of an 'activist' is different from assessing that of a mainstream politician (he compares favourably in terms of notability to others in the category 'Australian Environmentalists'). Nevertheless he satisfies the criteria 'Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage' and (point 2 of 'Notability (people) Politicians') had "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject of the article".
  • The references demonstrate that Ralph's opinion on the specific environment of the Box-Ironbark Forest of North Central Victoria (and in other places in Victoria) was sought and noted (notability), indicating he was regarded as an expert.
  • Being a self-published co-author is not in itself a disqualification when the article is online at La Trobe University and the co-authors are recognised academics (Ralph was self-taught, and yet evidently highly regarded enough to be included). He is not the publisher and therefore not justifiably to be described as 'self-published'
  • Inclusion of an interview with Ralph in the film cited (and mention in reports about the film and the associated event) is further evidence of such regard.
  • I am concerned that the obstacles to achieving 'notability' in a regional rural setting are not being considered in his case, when in fact it is this isolation which has built the expertise in Ralph that others have sought.

I urge reconsideration of, or at least a delay in the application of this election. sinarau (talk) 07:27, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:57, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:59, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. As a candidate for a federal election, the subject does not meet WP:Politician and the usual outcome per WP:POLOUTCOMES is to delete or merge or redirect to an appropriate page about that election. I also do not believe the subject meets WP:AUTHOR. There is no assertion that as an author, the subject is "widely cited by peers or successors," " is known for originating a significant new concept, theory or technique," or "created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work" that was "the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews." Enos733 (talk) 17:09, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Clearly an early and significant figure in raising awareness of environmental and historical issues for the region. Bahudhara (talk) 05:05, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Obviously a noted environmentalist in central Victoria. —Jonny Nixon - (Talk) 08:06, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I was halfway through a comment here about how appreciative I was of the expansion that had been done here, even if I still didn't think Ralph was really notable. Then I had a closer look at some of the references. Not only did I find no fewer than three which did not support what they were claimed to support (and removed them - and I can't even check anything offline!), almost none of them can be considered independent coverage under WP:GNG. Everything from Connecting Country (a no-doubt worthy, but undeniably local organisation - not notable) can be discounted as he was a co-founder and its first president. Everything from the radio station (again local and minor) the same. So where does that leave us? We have the book on Sanger, which was published by Friends of the Box Ironbark Forest (and where the entire group is credited as a co-author, so we have no idea how many people really wrote the book) - another local group of which Ralph was a member. So not independent. We have his blog: not independent. We have a couple of passing mentions in the Bendigo Advertiser. We have what from my reading are a few brief quotes in a couple of journal articles (correct me if I'm wrong on this). Based on all of that, I'm not seeing significant, independent, reliable coverage. The only one on which I might be convinced is the (offline) EarthSong interview - but even then, that's only one, and it's also in a source that has, at the very least, questionable reliability (it is not an academic journal, and while I don't know a lot about it, I have questions about its significance and standing. Very happy to be corrected or receive further information from those more familiar).
I do not see how we have a figure here who is notable for our purposes. I see a local activist - worthy, yes. Admirable, yes. Someone who I would absolutely vote for, yes. But someone who meets our notability standards? No. Frickeg (talk) 11:02, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Article can be expanded but easily passes notability. Billy Hathorn (talk) 03:23, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Look, I don't want to badger people, but it would be really nice if a few of these keep !voters could explain what makes them think he is "easily", "obviously" or "clearly" notable, especially given the points made above. Frickeg (talk) 03:54, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Frickeg's analysis of the sources included in the expanded article accord with my own. They are either very small tidbits from barely reliable publications, or longer pieces from non-reliable sources. A rough guide to notability for someone recently deceased would be an obituary in a major metropolitan newspaper. There is nothing of a kind here. This suggests to me that he was not a person of significance beyond a very narrow local and political area. That does not amount to notability for Wikipedia purposes. --Mkativerata (talk) 23:54, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I have reviewed the sources in the article and concur with Frickeg's analysis. -- Whpq (talk) 19:54, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The problem of a lack of "reliable sources" is really one of media bias - volunteer environmental work of this sort rarely receives coverage in the press - even a national event such as Clean Up Australia Day receives only a few lines in the media, such as this. (It seems that environmental work isn't considered "sexy" or "newsworthy" enough in our sport and celebrity-obsessed society.) Through being involved in the field myself, I personally know at least half-a-dozen OAM recipients, as well as other academic scientists (including one who has had an asteroid named after him!) who don't have Wikipedia articles (or at least, not yet!), despite making very significant comparable contributions, or even, in some cases, having a prominent media profile. I have only a limited knowledge of how the nomination process for these awards is carried out, but it's possible that he wasn't considered for an award because of his political activity as a candidate for elections (as recently as 2010); and OAMs are not granted posthumously (unless nominated while still living).
Being from South Australia, I don't know how the Landcare system operates in Victoria - my understanding is that Landcare was a 1990s Howard Government initiative to put federal environmental funding into local projects, bypassing the state governments, that has since been rolled into a natural resource management framework involving a collaboration of state and local governments. "Connecting Country" is one such service delivery element in this framework - I note from their website that they have an independent board and 9 paid employees, so I certainly wouldn't regard them as a "non-reliable source". Having myself sat in the gallery and watched the proceedings during innumerable Catchment Board meeting in my home state, I can well imagine that, as the inaugural president of Connecting Country, and especially given his background, Ralph must have been an exceptional leader during the pioneering phase of the establishment of the organisation. Bahudhara (talk) 03:17, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think the OAM thing is a bit of a dead end - plenty of partisan people win OAMs every year. It's done through a non-partisan Council; although appointed on the PM's recommendation, the awards are rarely seen to have "vetoed" appointments to the Order on partisan grounds. It's not counted really as a factor towards establishing notability anyway, as plenty of non-notable people receive it. In some cases you're saying people have a "prominent media profile" - if that were the case, I doubt they'd have trouble passing GNG.
I didn't say Connecting Country was a non-reliable source, I said they were not an independent source, since Ralph was a long-time member and co-founder. It's not a notable organisation as far as I can tell (although no doubt a very useful one). I'm sure Ralph was a great local leader for his area's environment, but that doesn't make him notable. Bear in mind most local councillors aren't notable either. They still have to pass the GNG. Frickeg (talk) 13:01, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 00:04, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 23:21, 12 March 2015 (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/Doug_Ralph&oldid=1137798755"