Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Samori Marksman

Add links
Source: 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.

Spartaz Humbug! 21:46, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

Samori Marksman

Samori Marksman (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)

I've attempted to improve this entry as much as possible, but it still seems to me the subject fails notabiliy. The only claim or basis for notability I can identify is based on a few obituaries for the subject as program director for a minor New York radio station for a few years. I can find no sources treating him as notable in his own right, only one credible verifiable source noting that the turnout for his funeral was notable. It seems to me quite a stretch to claim notability for the subject himself simply on that basis plus a few eulogies in lesser sources, which appear to be simply personal condolences for a colleague. I don't claim omniscience, I'm more than happy and willing to discuss the question in an attempt to reach consensus. AtomikWeasel (talk) 19:06, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the
talk to me 20:07, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 01:12, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 01:12, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 01:12, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, his role in the US might not be sufficient for notability, but in terms of his role in the Grenada revolution (serving closely with the then nat'l govt) and Guinea could suffice, awarded national honour of Guinea. --Soman (talk) 09:21, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I'm the nominator in this instance. If I understand you correctly you seem to feel that Marksman does in fact fail notability with respect to his US activities and positions. That leaves, then, the question as to whether or not he would be notable with respect to his support for the
    Grenadian Revolution and/or his having apparently/possibly received a national honor from the government of Guinea
    :
  • As to the first, all we have from the sources available is that he was a supporter of the Grenadian Revolution who was one of three producers of a documentary in support of that revolution. (IMDB, which is considered less than reliable per Wikipedia criteria, lists him as Director, but the cites and sources presented indicate he was the last listed of three producers.)
  • Critically, we have to the best of my knowledge no source indicating any close, meaningful, or substantial role in the Grenadian Revolution.
  • In general, we seem to me to have only the laudable things one hears in eulogies, and no other real, meaningful, verifiable sources which might make a claim to notability as per Wikipedia criteria.
  • A quick Google seems to find nothing other than this entry, a few eulogies, the report of a funeral, and the IMDB listing I referred to above. Are these sufficient to establish even minimal notability as per Wikipedia criteria seems to me to be the question. AtomikWeasel (talk) 19:59, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:41, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted
to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 12:31, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted
to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti*Let's talk!* 23:53, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: I agree with the nom; there's nothing really out there save for obituaries, and we know that obituaries don't in of themselves support notability. Being "honored" by a government doesn't automatically confer notability either, especially when there's no reliable source attesting to the fact. Besides, I freaking hate Keep votes that put forth waffly answers like "could suffice." Sources have to be demonstrated, otherwise it doesn't suffice. Nha Trang 18:54, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I don't think it's fair to say that coverage is limited to a couple of eulogies/obituaries. It's true that sometimes the death of a subject prompts additional coverage but that doesn't devalue the coverage. This (already cited in the article) is a good start and we can add to those already included this book which contains significant coverage of the subject (published by
    WP:GNG. St★lwart111 00:34, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Comment: I'm the nominator. I have no idea what's meant above by 'fair' – I'm only interested in what meets or fails to meet notaility per Wikipedia criteria. I’ve gone to the cites offered above, and they’re simply more mostly brief passing references and some nice things being said in eulogies, mostly by colleagues. As I said in presenting the entry for deletion, I’d attempted to improve the entry and to find suitable sources with respect to notability. It was only when I was unable to actually come up with anything – even a single instance – which in any way actually established or at least offered a reasonable basis as to possibly later establishing a claim to notability that I put the entry up for consideration as to deletion.
As for the examples offered above, I won’t plow through them each and every one individually at length as a consideration of time and space (feel free to do so, I’m not being unfairly selective, I assure you), but here are a few, representative of the quality of the entire batch:
  • The first example offered, from Democracy Now! is literally a eulogy from a colleague.
  • The second is a quasi-academic history of the radio station and its parent network which refers to Marksman briefly, in passing, as having been its program director at one point in time. Even in that section the subject is not Marksman, but the general evolution of the station and the network – he is not the actual subject.
  • The third is a book in which Goodman, in passing, expands on her eulogy, with nothing in any way further bearing on or in any way adding to the possibility of notability.
  • As for New York Magazine, we are told, above, as a claim to notability, that New York Magazine 'extensively cited' Marksman in 'sequential 1984' issues. I've searched New York Magazine, and I've also searched this via Google. All I find are simply listings for the film he was promoting in 1984 as a publicist for the
    People's Revolutionary Government of Grenada
    , then in power, in which capacity he was apparently the last credited of the three co-producers of the 'documentary' film Grenada: The Future Coming Toward Us. IMDB, in contrast, lists him as director. IMDB is, of course, unreliable per Wikipedia, and I can find absolutely no reviews or notices in any reputable trade or general publication, either print or online. In any case, notability is of course not associative or derivative, and this, despite a claim of its being 'extensively cited' in New York Magazine can by no stretch of the imagination be even suggestive as to actual notability.
  • The example presented of testimony in the US House of Representatives illustrates the extreme stretch being made here in an attempt to establish notability: The actual quote is very brief, testimony that WBAI serves certain communities, and in that brief section there’s a very brief reminiscence of having attended a memorial service. That’s it. Nothing more. This establishes ‘notability’?
  • Per Wikipedia criteria?
  • How?
AtomikWeasel (talk) 02:18, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lasar's book refers to Marksman on at least 6 different occasions in a range of contexts, not just once and in passing. His memorial was significant enough that among the "thousands" who attended were congressmen, civic and religious leaders and that fact is attested to by the congressman in question. You still haven't explained why eulogies (though I disagree that is what they are) are somehow less valid sources. And to be clear, the sources I put forward were just the few I grabbed from the first page of Google results. Even after all of that, you are still free to disagree. St★lwart111 02:35, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I'm the nominator. I thank you for your kind permission not to share your judgement.
  • The requirement is for significant coverage from multiple, reliable, verifiable, independent sources.
  • Such coverage is nowhere to be found.
  • Lasar’s book refers to Marksman on ‘at least six occasions in a range of contexts and occasions’, you argue. The book is a 430 page study of ‘Pacifica Radio’s Civil War’, according to the listing in Amazon, in which, as I understand it, you’re arguing that Samori Marksman is established as notable per Wikipedia criteria because, having been a program director at one of five stations in a decades’ long history of the network he’s mentioned, you say, all of half a dozen times at various points. How is this ‘significant coverage’ of Marksman, as opposed to incidental, in passing coverage in the course of a much longer subject? Marksman is not the subject, nor is he the subject of ‘significant coverage’ even within the course of these 430pp. He’s only referred to, at various points, in passing, as the station program director. If, say, a business manager were mentioned the same number of times, in the same varying conexts, in passing, and if ‘thousands’ were claimed to attend a funeral service for her and eulogies presented by friends and colleagues, would that make her notable per Wikipedia criteria?
  • If you feel that’s the case, then Wikipedia will have to become far, far, far more ‘inclusive’.
  • The burden as to notability is on those who assert notability, and there’s no basis, per Wikipedia criteria, for saying this person meets the criteria. Not objectively. In the reminiscences of colleague and mourner, perhaps, but those aren't the criteria.
  • This may have been a swell guy, much loved by his colleagues, a fine fellow, but the eulogies and warm thoughts derivative of that fact don’t make him notable.
  • For pity’s sake, we’re being told that a public relations film he seems to have promoted makes him notable because its showings were duly listed in New York Magazine?
  • How sad a claim to notability is that? How far is the stretch as to ‘notability’ supposed to go, exactly?
  • You appear to argue that since these inadequate claims to notability were found quickly, that surely there must be more, that would actually satisfy notability.
  • Okay, so you’re a better editor and researcher than I… fine… where are thay, and what are they, other than existing by virtue of conjecture and arm waving?
  • It seems to me you’re actually arguing for Delete without prejudice.

On March 23, 1999, the Pacifica community had learned that Samori Marksman had died of a heart attack in his sleep. He was 51 years old. The Cuban government sent its regrets. Upon receiving the news, Janet Jagan, president of Guyana, ordered her cabinet meeting to recess. Nine days later, 3,000 people mourned Marksman's untimely passing at the Cathedral of St. John the Devine. The station produced a three-hour memorial for him.

— Matthew Lasar, Uneasy Listening: Pacifica Radio's Civil War
There's also an official obituary in the
New York Times
, such things in previous discussions having been considered sufficient for establishing notability in their own right.
The president of a foreign government ordered her cabinet into recess, the government of another sent respects and the New York Times sent a reporter (who writes for them to this day) to cover the funeral in the form of an official obituary. But he's not notable enough by our standards? St★lwart111 04:14, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]


  • Comment: I'm the nominator. I hate to break it to you, but in newspaper terms, in particular at the Times, that’s not an obituary, even if you seem to think it is.
  • An obituary runs either as straight news in some part of the straight news section or in the obituaries section.
  • In this case we have a neighborhood piece. The subject is an event, of note, just as other neighborhood events or happenings may be of note.
  • I don’t think, though, that, say, a neighborhood piece in the Times on the funeral for a child crossing Broadway on the Upper West Side would mean much as to a claim to notability per Wikipedia criteria, even if it had hundreds or a few thousand mourners (common) and many had wonderful things to say about the person and how very important they were in so very many ways.
  • The editorial judgement of the Times, such as it was, was that the man was not in and of himself or his accomplishments notable. If that were the editorial judgement of the Times there would have been an obit in the news section (not ‘neighborhood news’, which includes, say, the opening of a new movie theater or sushi place or a bit of road repair, or, as I mentioned, the death of a child or little old lady crossing the street).
  • If in your judgement such pieces establish notability, then, as I said, Wikipedia will have to become very, very, very inclusive indeed.
  • As for the quote you provide from Mr Lasar’s book:
  • We don’t know if Mr Lasar, by virtue of being a professor and having written a book is by virtue of those facts a reliable source as per Wikipedia. Even if it’s the case that the president of Guyana adjourned a cabinet meeting on learning of Marksman’s death, does that establish notability? That would be arguing for derivative notability in the extreme. If the president had adjourned a cabinet meeting on learning on the death of a friend or colleague would that establish notability?
  • So you have the fact that the Times didn’t judge the man notable in the sense of giving him an obit, but you want to argue that a neighborhood piece about his funeral establishes notability?
  • That a source (Lasar) which we have no way to judge as to credibility has written a book in which in passing he mentions that a foreign president adjourned a cabinet meeting on learning of his death establishes a claim as to notability?
  • You don’t think that’s stretching just a wee, little bit?
  • We have, still not so much as a single credible, reliable, verifiable, reputable source that did, for example, a simple profile of the man, only arguments as to claims of derivative notability.
  • I fail to see how that even begins to satisfy notability.
  • I’m simply attempting to be scrupulous here as to the criteria. They seem to me fairly straightforward.
  • The examples you give require an enormous reach to attempt to satisfy notability, and they still fall far short – for example characterizing a neighborhood memorial piece (gatherings in the thousands are, if you’re unaware, common at St John the Divine) as an obit – it ain’t.
  • In any event, the things people say in eulogy or memoriam are to be understood in such light. They aren’t straight-ahead accounts or even profiles, they’re praise of the beloved departed.
  • Find anything that *actually* satisfies the criteria? I’m open, I truly am. It was only when I couldn’t find anything (and I found the sources you cite) that actually satifsfied notability that I put the article up for deletion.
  • If it meets the standards, I’m delighted to have it.
  • Comment: I'm not the nominator. Wow. Bravo. That has to be some of the best (but most meaningless) wiki-lawyering I have ever seen.
  • Awesome.
  • Use.
  • Of.
  • Dot.
  • Points.
  • And you can still believe that foreign governments memorialising local radio hosts is "common practice" and "nothing special". I disagree and your badgering isn't making my agreement any more likely. St★lwart111 06:04, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I'm the nominator. I’m simply attempting, as best I can, to correct your misunderstandings as to what, for instance, is an obituary in the judgement of the New York Times. You seemed to be arguing that a local piece was an obituary, when any journalist would tell you in a heartbeat that it isn’t.
  • More importantly, I’m attempting to present the facts, as objectively as I can, as best I understand them. If that upsets you for some reason, I apologize.
  • I’m not under the impression that I’m either infallible or inerrant. If you have contrary facts and/or interpretations that withstand reasonable scrutiny, I’ll be more than happy to accept correction.
  • The fact is that most of your reasoning is along the lines of associative, derivative, or implied notability.
  • If you have examples that meet Wikipedia criteria, please present them – so far as I know your finding my style of presentation offensive for some reason isn’t a valid factor as to the arguments with respect to notability or lack thereof.
  • It simply isn’t my understanding that the criteria are in a way, quite simple, and quite clear – and that they haven’t been met.
  • It seems to me, therefore, that the entry ought be deleted.
  • Evidently you differ.
  • That is of course, your privilege, and I respect it as such.
  • I don’t see, though, how style matters. Only the arguments and evidence matter, not the style of presentation or reaction to it.
  • The man fails to satisfy notability on the basis of any information presented.
  • I’m sincerely sorry if that seems to upset you.

ps: What you're referring to as 'dot points' are properly known as 'bullets' or 'bullet points' by editors and typographers. You may want to consult the relevant entry.

  • Well, lucky I'm not an editor or typographer. I suppose the staggering number of AFDs you've participated in might have made you jaded to the sorts of "real world" arguments some of us use around here (rather than lock-jawing onto policy minutiae). Use some common sense. The fact that you think the concept of notability is "quite simple" is telling and explains a good portion of your "arguments". The aim of these discussions is to build a
    consensus for deletion (or not) which you seem completely averse to doing. St★lwart111 10:14, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Comment: I'm the nominator. I'm simply attempting to address very real-world criteria in Wikipedian terms as best I can, however imperfectly. I have no interest in accumulating Wikipedia credits, per se, only in attempting to address the facts and to form and weigh arguments appropriately – tasks at which, I agree, I’m far from perfect.
In real world terms, if that’s what you prefer, there’s no reason to believe the man was notable. He was program director at a local New York City radio station which, while it appears from the Wikipedia entry to have been of some import and note in real world terms in the 1960s and 1970s, now appears to have very nearly no listeners and to be on the verge of bankruptcy according to a number of minor news accounts I came across in the process of researching this. One account I came across noted that the place has so few listeners it doesn’t even register in the ratings, and others indicated that it survives, barely, solely by selling health scams from the likes of Gary Null – does that make him noteworthy in real world terms? The time at which he was program director was not the period when the station appears to have been of some consequence in real world terms, but during the period of its decline into obscurity – does that make him notable in real-world terms, the descent into obscurity?
It also appears, from the information we have, that he was an old-school Marxist and as such propagandist for a few dictatorial governments. Does having been a minor propagandist for a few dictatorial governments make him noteworthy in real world terms? If so, we don’t have much evidence even for that, other than those eulogies from people who appear to have shared his particular political beliefs and said nice things about the man in his memory after his death.
Where, then, do we have ‘real-world’ notability?
We certainly don’t have anything that rises even minimally to notability per Wikipedia criteria hence, I suppose, your argument that he appears, you think, in your judgement, to have had some small ‘real world’ notability because some folks referred to it in eulogies.
If you have other, credible facts and arguments feel free to make them. I’m open to them, I assure you. Thus far, they appear not to exist.
If you want to infer them, that’s up to you – such inference, however, is only that – your personal inference.
I’m not interested in that stretch of evidence and logic, I see no reason for it in either Wikipedian or real world terms.
Sorry. AtomikWeasel (talk) 18:28, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Hell's bells, folks, can we do without the filibusters? Either the guy meets the GNG (multiple
    notability is not inherited. Whether he was a Marxist or not doesn't matter. You've made your cases over and over again .... can we stop now? Nha Trang 19:07, 23 September 2014 (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/Samori_Marksman&oldid=1140219713"