Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Edgar De Pue Neville Osgood
- 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 delete. Kurykh (talk) 15:06, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
- Edgar De Pue Neville Osgood (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)
Delete. WP:BLP of a person who has a potentially valid claim of notability, but hasn't even started to reliably source it -- of the four "references" here, three of them are YouTube or Dailymotion videos, and the fourth is a WP:CIRCULAR citation to another Wikipedia article. And on a Google News search, I'm finding exactly zero evidence of actual reliable source coverage. I will grant that despite the lack of recent coverage on open web, his potentially notable activities were far enough in the past that he might be sourceable over WP:GNG in deep databases that I don't have access to, so I'm willing to withdraw this if somebody can show evidence that higher-quality sources actually do exist somewhere -- but an improperly sourced article does not get the "keep and flag for refimprove" treatment just because it's theoretically possible that better sources might exist; it gets that treatment only if and when it can be demonstrated that the necessary volume and quality of reliable sourcing does exist. Bearcat (talk) 16:17, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:38, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:38, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:38, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:38, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
- Comment Something smells wrong with this article. Beyond the fact that it's 99% puffery and name-dropping, extraordinary claims require extraordinary references. I don't know how easy it is to get a Legion of Honor from France, but watching the video made me cringe. Rather than hurt my AfD percentage further, I'll just say that this biography gives me real doubts as to veracity. Chris Troutman (talk) 01:44, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
- Delete I am not convinced that the claims of the article could make him notable. I do know that the claim that his brother was in the rat pack is false, it does not work with the listed members of the rat pack we have. Beyond this, the link to a Wikipedia article for his brother is to someone born in 1876 who was not his brother. This article cries out for actual sources, and they are no where present.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:04, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
- Delete -- I find very few references to him and none of them indicate notability.Glendoremus (talk) 05:18, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
- Comment - There are many mentions of him in articles on newspapers.com[1] (also mentions of his parents and other peripheral individuals, note he frequently is found under "edgar d osgood"), none that I can find about him are in depth. genealogybank (a site similar to newspapers.com) doesn't give anything better, but gives more references. Thus, my feeling is that many of the individual statements in the article are verifiable and together they give the subject enough depth that he may be suitable for an article. If forced to !vote, I would say weak keep as a regional social and regional back-room political figure who has experienced minor coverage over a long period, especially if @Vivzs:, the article's creator, were interested in cleaning the page up and using reliable sources. Smmurphy(Talk) 16:13, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
- 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.