Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/William H. Lacy

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, defaults to Keep. NawlinWiki 20:37, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

William H. Lacy

)

Lacking of "reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject." Gruber76 18:58, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, Forbes isn't reliable? --Xiaphias 19:12, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I contend (see talk page) that the Forbes "article" is a tertiary source. It's not from their magazine, it's from their database which is a rehash of information from SEC filings and company press releases. You'd find one on any executive mentioned in an SEC filing. Gruber76 19:46, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete There are secondary sources, but who this guy is and why he matters is shaky. The article needs to establish his notability, more than just the fact that he's lead a few different organizations. --David Andréas 19:36, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The article does not have sufficient content but does have secondary sources. An editor willing to spend some time on it may be all that it takes. CuriousGiselle 19:38, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Conditional Keep: if the article can be expanded to provide sufficient information and establish notability for what currently seems to be just a moderately accomplished retired executive. Otherwise, Delete. Lorangriel 19:50, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The sources here are not secondary reliable sources. They're basically regurgitated press releases. Unless other sources can be found, I don't see the notability here. -Chunky Rice 23:56, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep The Forbes database is certainly acceptable for the facts--for notability it's relevant only as him meeting their standards for inclusion, and I do not know what they are--but I doubt very much they are indiscriminate. But he's the former President and CEO of MGIC, and MGIC is Mortgage Guaranty Insurance Corporation, and it is in fact the largest private mortgage lender. CEOs of major firms are notable, & the leading firm in the mortgage business is a major firm. That he was the CEO is verified by the Forbes database, which I consider unquestionably reliable for such purposes. . What more could possibly be wanted? I sometimes think that WP is not always quite as hospitable as it might be to academics, but we seem to do even worse with business executives. DGG 04:48, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Adequate sources have been added to demonstrate notability, not that the Forbes sources was insufficient. Notability has been demonstrated. Alansohn 03:32, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't want to withhold information, so I'm going to start by presenting evidence I've collected that leans away from delete, but in the end I am unswayed. I just spent an hour in the
CU research library to see if I could establish his notability. I found that there appear to be many many articles mentioning William H. Lacy in the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, a newspaper with a circulation of 400,000, but as far as I can tell the only university that finds it worthwhile to subscribe is in Montana. Additionally, CuriousGiselle found (but has not yet updated the article with) an [article
] from the Pacific Business News (whose circulation I am unable to find) relating that Mr. Lacy spoke before a U.S. House committee.
- Comment - Huh? Check your sources; a quick check of WorldCat shows that, in addition to various Wisconsin libraries, there are 24 Illinois libraries, 10 in Minnesota, 3 in Ohio, 2 each in Missouri and Michigan, and 1 library each in Iowa, Texas and Arizona that subscribe to the Journal Sentinel. --Orange Mike 19:54, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

These are, however, in my opinion the only "reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject" that have been presented (or that I've found.) The NNDB, Forbes, SEC filings, and certainly the alumni newsletter article do not count as such. Added together the Pacific Business News article and the multiple hometown newspaper stories make Mr. Lacy's notability something that can be argued, but in my view do not put him over the threshold of notability as set forth.

And to the argument that he was the CEO of a notable company that does important things and is sizable, etc, I respond simply that notability is not subjective. The fact that there has not been "significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject" is not modified by this argument.

All that said (And I do apologize for going on) I will certainly not be upset if the consensus is that either Mr. Lacy does meet the notability guidelines or that an exception is appropriate. I am glad that this process has served to bring out references and citations that will improve the quality of the article if we decide to keep it. Gruber76 20:05, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the
John Vandenberg 13:08, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete on grounds of non-notability. Being a director of a public listed company makes him important, but the trivial coverage of this article falls far short of the WP:Notability (people) criteria. --Gavin Collins 14:09, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep . All the sources in the article are secondory ones. There is no tertiary source. The google search result for William H. Lacy shows enough notability at least much more notable than William Lacy. Miaers 22:55, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To reiterate, the standard here is "reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject." The references you indicate are an alumni newsletter (not reliable and of questionable independence) and a press release from a company Mr. Lacy controls in part (not independent) respectively.

So, can Google alone provide notability? Theoretically a company could issues 1000 press releases that get carried in each of five press-release services. As a backup to reliable and independent secondary sources, Google carries weight. By itself, I argue, it does not. Gruber76 01:24, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ironically, so you think first hand source is not reliable, because the two sources you just mentioned are first hand source actually. Miaers 03:03, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Gavin Collins. The references provided are trivial, and no notability beyond being an officer of a corporation is provided. --ZimZalaBim (talk) 02:49, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He is not just an officer of a company but the No 1 figure of the largest private mortgage lender in the US. Miaers 03:06, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Even if that somehow automatically makes someone notable by WP standards, that was 8 years ago... --ZimZalaBim (talk) 03:17, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So what. Things happened in the past are not notable? The company is still the largest private mortgage lender in the US though. Miaers 03:20, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just to be clear,

MGIC is not a mortgage lender, but a provider of mortgage insurance. --ZimZalaBim (talk) 21:35, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

My point is that all you seem to have established is that he was the head of a large lender 8 years ago. How does that fulfill WP:Notability (people)? (these aren't new questions - others above stated the same). --ZimZalaBim (talk) 03:26, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Forbes, NNDB etc are all reliable first or secondary sources for notability. Miaers 03:31, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Read the notes above - various editors disagree with your assessment of these "sources". --ZimZalaBim (talk) 03:43, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Forbes is a first/second hand source. How can it be unreliable? Miaers 03:46, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Forbes' magazine would be a reliable, independent, secondary source--no question. This link, however, is to Forbes' website/database. Just as a journalist's blog at a major newspaper would need to be handled differently from an official article in the newspaper, this database is different from Forbes' magazine. I believe that is also why the Forbes' link is in "External links" rather than being used as a reference. And to clarify: I am not questioning the Forbes database entry's reliability, I am asserting that it is a tertiary source and does not indicate notability of the person/article. Gruber76 04:21, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think so. The database should be a secondary source. Otherwise, it isn't worth of entry. Miaers 15:06, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just to refresh my memory, I re-read the wikipedia entry wikipedia official policy that defines primary, secondary, and tertiary sources as we are discussing them. It still appears to me that this Forbes database falls squarely under "publications such as encyclopedias that sum up other secondary sources." Is there something specific that leads you to think it is not tertiary? The "tertiary" brand on the Forbes link is only my opinion, and is certainly up for discussion. Gruber76 15:32, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think that's arbitrary. Encyclopedias can also use first hand source. Besides those policy also says that even tertiary source encyclopedia can be used as a reliable source. Miaers 18:06, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We can use primary sources for information, but not to establish notability. -Chunky Rice 18:30, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Changing vote to Keep: I went ahead and found a citation from the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel noting his retirement, which should satisfy notability guidelines. --ZimZalaBim (talk) 20:17, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Article doesn't establish notability. It's not like he's Lee Iacocca and resurrected the company from certain death... PaddyM 03:12, 10 July 2007 (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.