Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thomas J. Bray

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. With the support of the original nominator, the consensus is to keep. (non-admin closure) Enos733 (talk) 13:59, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas J. Bray

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Fails WP:NBUSINESSPERSON and WP:GNG. As for his New York Times obituary, I don't have a subscription, but I suspect it's probably as short as the Harrisburg [PA] Evening News one: "Thomas J. Bray, director of the Youngstown Sheet & Tube Company and former president of the Republic Steel Corporation, died suddenly in his office here [Youngstown, Ohio] today." Not to be confused with the modern-day newspaper columnist of exactly the same name. Clarityfiend (talk) 05:11, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep I do have a NYT subscription and so can confidently say that the nomination's suspicion is erroneous. Such an NYT obituary is quite adequate to demonstrate notability but, in any case, it is easy to find more detailed coverage of the subject in works such as History of Youngstown and the Mahoning Valley, Ohio. Our policy WP:ATD therefore applies: "If editing can improve the page, this should be done rather than deleting the page.". See also WP:BEFORE. Andrew🐉(talk) 06:51, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This biography has been around for 7 years and has not progressed beyond what it is. It does not meet WP:GNG because significant coverage has not been provided - nor located - as per WP:SIGCOV - "Significant coverage addresses the topic directly and in detail....Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention". William Harris (talk) 08:36, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The NYT obit is seven paragraphs; along with the "Who's Who" citation in the article, and the additional source found by Andrew, above, which gives a column and a half to Bray, I think that's enough to pass the GNG. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:57, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I've now added a photo from the source Andrew found. Bray is also mentioned in Ketchum, Richard M.. The Borrowed Years, 1938-1941: America on the Way to War. United States, Anchor Books, 1991, but I can't tell how significant a mention it is since it's just snippet view. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:55, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as the absence of significat coverage prevails the possible general notability of the subject. Asketbouncer (talk) 14:44, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:33, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:33, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Engineering-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:33, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A quick search of Newspapers.com shows fairly significant overage, unfortunately much of it is paywalled. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 01:33, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Are you sure you're not confusing him with Thomas J. Bray the newspaper editor (or the lawyer and politician in the '20s and '30s)? I have a newspapers.com account, and I haven't found much about the older man other than routine announcements (made president, retiring). Clarityfiend (talk) 07:41, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There are lots of people of this name, such as T. J. Bray. The nominator fails to explain why the president of one of America's largest steel companies is less credible as a subject than a basketball player, journalist, lawyer or politician. What's wrong with engineers? Andrew🐉(talk) 08:41, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ask Sheldon Cooper. Why, they're almost as bad as geologists. Clarityfiend (talk) 10:11, 24 June 2021 (UTC) [reply]

Keep Notable person who was notably written about. Easily meets WP:GNG. At least as important as the usual Porn star; not an argument we are supposed to make. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 12:52, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Borderline. I found a bio of him in [1], but is this work reliable? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:29, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The NYT Obituary is available on ProQuest via the https://wikipedialibrary.wmflabs.org/users/my_library/ Piecesofuk (talk) 18:27, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Piecesofuk: Do you have a more specific link? I'm having trouble finding it. Clarityfiend (talk) 21:12, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Clarityfiend: If you email me I can send you a copy. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:43, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think this link should work if you're logged into the Wikipedia Library https://www-proquest-com.wikipedialibrary.idm.oclc.org/docview/100804067/E444A07D389B47C9PQ/1 otherwise try searching for Thomas J. Bray 1933 and clicking on Historical Newspapers, it should be top of the list Piecesofuk (talk) 06:04, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Withdraw nomination. A long New York Times obituary is hard to argue with. (Thanks, Piecesofuk.) Clarityfiend (talk) 10:09, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

WP:GNG advises that "Sources should be secondary sources, as those provide the most objective evidence of notability. There is no fixed number of sources required since sources vary in quality and depth of coverage, but multiple sources are generally expected." Have multiple WP:SECONDARY sources been demonstrated here, "as is generally expected"? I shall leave that for you to ponder. William Harris (talk) 10:34, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) The discussion shows that some editors find it all too easy to argue with such evidence. Clarityfiend continued to argue even though I told him plainly at the outset that his contrary assumption was wrong. William Harris is mainly here as WP:REVENGE for a prod of his that I removed and Piotrus is a similar case. Asketbouncer seems to be the only arguer without any baggage but their !vote was rather incoherent. All concerned should now please apologise for doubting Mike Christie who is an excellent editor, having created over 100 good and featured articles. His essay on surviving Wikipedia is also worth a read. Andrew🐉(talk) 10:46, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

William Harris is only here because you badged the article with WP:METALWORKING - and deleted WP:BIOGRAPHY, and a biography is what the article really is - but without giving an assessment; the action appeared on one of my lists of interest. So there is an obituary, and some brief mention in the odd publication - that still does not make this person meet WP:GNG with significant coverage in multiple secondary sources. What has happened here is the circumvention of a legitimate WP process; WP is not a collection of facts, it is an encyclopedia. As the amount of data grows on WP, so does the cost of keeping such data - it is referred to as Information Economics. Eventually this will lead to its demise based on cost unless it is managed. Today, it was not managed. William Harris (talk) 12:26, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It was "managed" but not to your liking. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 13:08, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Now I study the history in more detail the pattern becomes clearer and it's not an interest in biographies. Andrew🐉(talk) 13:45, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew, thanks for the kind words. I will add that it's not unreasonable to AfD a bio supported by an NYT obit; there are plenty of early obits that are no more than squibs without any independent support for notability. E.g. from the same day that Bray's obit appears, we get this: "John H. Gordon, an organizer of the New York State Road Builders' Assoociation, and its president for fifteen years, died last night. He was graduated from the Christian Brothers Academy in Albany and Villanova College." The obit needs to be reasonably lengthy, as Bray's is, or there must be independent references. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:56, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome but WP:BEFORE details what may be reasonably expected before creating a nomination. In this case, we have fails of B2; C1; C3; C4; D1 and D3. There are also other considerations such as WP:BITE and WP:BATTLEGROUND. I picked up on this nomination because Mike's talk page is on my watchlist. Novice editors don't get the benefit of such networking and we lose a lot to such zeal. Andrew🐉(talk) 15:27, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I "continued to argue"? I merely asked some questions. As for your claim that I failed numerous parts of BEFORE,

B2: As I stated, I couldn't view the NYT article. The newer sources are mostly obscure and not readily available online.
C1: This is what the Afd is supposed to determine.
C3: This article is unlikely to have much traffic.
C4: At the time, his company was a redlink, which made an Afd more plausible. I suppose I could have checked for a different name. That charge I'll cop to.
D1: Nothing of any substance there, other than the NYT.
D3: One source, when it was unclear how long and detailed it is, does not constitute "adequate sources". Clarityfiend (talk) 20:30, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

So, no apology from Clarityfiend because they did everything perfectly. But paradoxically they now want to withdraw this immaculate nomination. And I still think that it should be speedily closed too. But the discussion continues... Andrew🐉(talk) 09:51, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What's your problem? When I nominated the article, it had one off-line source, a New York Times obituary true, but another newspaper I could read gave a very brief version. Since then, more sources have been found, so WP:HEY applies. How is that "paradoxical"? Also, WP:No personal attacks applies as well. Clarityfiend (talk) 21:08, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There is now lots of substance beyond The New York Times obituary. The nomination has been withdrawn. You all agree! WP:Dead horse. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 13:05, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Time to close. There is WP:Consensus and nomination has been withdrawn. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 12:41, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. His entire life is summarized in numerous encyclopedic entries (e.g. National Cyclopaedia of American Biography, History of Youngstown and the Mahoning Valley, various Who's Who and Who Was Who compilations), and although secondary sources are preferred, neither WP:GNG nor WP:TERTIARY forbids the usage of tertiary sources (which often help structure biographies and facilitate the location of secondary sources). Additional coverage exists in trade industry publications: e.g. a biography and obituary, in The Iron Age, and short obit in Hardware Age. Newspapers and journal articles throughout his career provide non-trivial coverage: "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material." (Note: his father and son had the same name, so care should be warranted to avoid building a Frankenstein). --Animalparty! (talk) 01:29, 1 July 2021 (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.