Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bruce McAbee

: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. bibliomaniac 1 5 22:57, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

=[[Bruce McAbee]]=

:{{la|Bruce McAbee}} ([{{fullurl:Bruce McAbee|wpReason={{urlencode:AfD discussion: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bruce McAbee}}&action=delete}} delete]) – (View AfD)(View log)

This person does not meet the notability requirements for wikipedia. He is the vice president of a nominal credit company and is therefore not distinguished enough in his career to warrant a wikipedia article. Nrswanson (talk) 14:11, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Keep - Can you explain how it doesn't meet notability requirements? There are multiple inline citations from reliable secondary sources of the work he has done. This appears to meet the criteria to me. Turlo Lomon (talk) 14:19, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
Strong and speedy keep - As the author of the article, I have difficulty understanding the logic behind this nomination. The article passes WP:BIO, WP:V and WP:RS, and the subject is a highly prominent financial services executive. And, for the record, I never received notification that this article was up for deletion. Ecoleetage (talk) 14:24, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

:* Comment Although there are multiple sources proving he has done the work that he is done the work in itself is not that remarkable. He doesn't seem to have done anything beyond what the average individual in his field would do. A scholarship of only 250,000? The average doctor makes more than that in a year. Nrswanson (talk) 14:26, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

::Comment reply WP:IDONTLIKEIT and WP:IDONTCARE is not policy. Your personal opinion of the value of Mr. McAbee's work is not relevant, and the analogy to the doctor's salary makes no sense. Ecoleetage (talk) 14:30, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

:::*Comment reply This has nothing to do with WP:IDONTLIKEIT and WP:IDONTCARE, this has to do with WP:Notability. I don't see how the vice president of a nominal credit organization deserves a wikipedia article. My comment was in reference to the philanthropic work which might have made him notable but it seems like too small of ammount of money to make him notable even for that. Also, for the record, Ecoleetage responded on here about 15 minutes after I placed the AFD which really didn't give me much time to inform him. Nrswanson (talk) 14:40, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

::And... For the record, Mr. McAbee was the president of Farm Credit of New Mexico, not the vice president. Your opinion on the size of the scholarship is not relevant. Ecoleetage (talk) 15:01, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

:::* True but he is only a vice president now.Nrswanson (talk) 16:05, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

::::*He is an executive vice president today. Please read the articles carefully. Ecoleetage (talk) 16:37, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

:Comment I'm not sure this does meet WP:BIO. What evidence is there from the sources that he "has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field"? Soaringgoldeneagle (talk) 15:11, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

::Response That is an intelligent question. In his tenure at Farm Credit, Mr. McAbee sought to expand credit opportunities for younger farmers and ranchers. In the U.S., many young people are leaving the agricultural field and no one is there to replace them. In his capacity through two programs (both cited here), he sought to expand the financial opportunities available to keep the young ones on the farm. I hope that is clear. Thanks! :) Ecoleetage (talk) 15:14, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

:::* Note. There is no data or evidence to show that this goal was accomplished and that the attempts made by McAbee were in fact succesful.Nrswanson (talk) 15:18, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

::::Note Considering these are ongoing and current projects, your rush to declare failure or success is premature. Ecoleetage (talk) 15:27, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

:::::* Reply. Exactly. WP:Crystal ball applys here. And sense he no longer works for the organization that lessens his involvement with potential future success.Nrswanson (talk) 16:09, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Delete While there are sources, the majority of the coverage seems to be of Farm Credit's programs. While the subject is quoted and may even be important to the programs, the coverage is not of the subject himself. I don't see enough non-trivial coverage to pass WP:BIO. Movingboxes (talk) 14:31, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

:Comment back I would respectfully request re-reading the articles, particularly the first two where Mr. McAbee is clearly the focus of the subjects at hand. Ecoleetage (talk) 14:34, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

::Comment The second article's subject is Farm Credit. McAbee is quoted, but he is not the subject. Movingboxes (talk) 14:37, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

:::Mr. McAbee is quoted as the president of the bank that created the program. The bank, its program and its leadership are the subjects of the article. Ecoleetage (talk) 14:42, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

::::Comment That doesn't count as coverage of him. If my company does something notable and I'm quoted in connection with it I don't get notability from that. Movingboxes (talk) 14:48, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Keep Multiple citations to indicate importance; those wouldn't be there if the person wasn't notable. --Forego (talk) 14:40, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Delete I think the coverage here may be slightly above the trivial level, but it is mostly in business journals. I'm not convinced that Mr. McAbee's achievements are very notable - he is a business exec, and no doubt a fine one, but there are many such. I would be more impressed with more substantial coverage, in journals or in newspapers or on TV. I get the impression he has had little impact outside of his own field. Brianyoumans (talk) 14:43, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Weak Keep, there are sources cited and additional available that indicate some notability in his field. Business journals are not a lesser standard of notability, they confer a sense of professional recognition. I don 't think he's outstanding in his field, but I think he's been noted in enough reliable sources to pass WP:BIO TravellingCari 14:51, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Keep He obviously isn't the most notable farmer in the world. But he may just be the most notable farmer in New Mexico, as president of Farm Credit of New Mexico. This statement is backed by a reliable source. As TCari said above, "business journals are not a lesser standard of notability, they confer a sense of professional recognition." 4 WP:RS, IMO, are enough to establish notability. --I'm an Editor of the wiki^{[citation needed]} 15:30, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
And I have found another, which I added to the article. --I'm an Editor of the wiki^{[citation needed]} 15:39, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
Keep per EOTW. Multiple citations make bruce a dull boy. Ironho lds 15:32, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
Delete Fails WP:BIO and WP:N. Several of the refs are trivial or passing reference or lack independence. A proforma press release printed in a paper about personnel changes (ref 1) does not count for very much toward notability. I see one reference which is independent, reliable and substantial enough to support notability, and that is ref 2 from New Mexico Business Weekly, which has extensive quotes from McAbee. Ref 3, about a small scholarship fund from his company which grants small scholarships to children of employees, is trivial. Ref 3, Farm Credit Update announcing his successor, is trivial. Ref 4, announcing his successor, is trivial so far as he is concerned. Ref 5 is a publication of his credit union, and thus not independent. I searched Google News archives, and in addition to these inadequate refs all I could find was passing reference to his participation in 4H club activities when he was 9 and similar brief mentions/passing reference, indicating there are not lots of quality refs out there just waiting to be added. Edison2 (talk) 15:59, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
Strong and speedy keep Informative piece, and well worth keeping. Thorough and well-written with many reliable sources.Jodykish (talk) 16:11, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Note. Jodykish is a SPA with few edits outside of this AFD debate.Nrswanson (talk) 16:21, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Note I just checked Jodykish's contribution history -- he is a new editor who has already edited several different articles. He is not an SPA. Please, don't WP:BITE the newbies! Ecoleetage (talk) 16:30, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
If it was something like user:brucemcabee who had only contributed to this AfD then fair enough, but there's no need to call it an SPA. Ironho lds 16:32, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

::* This account was created today and has a total of 12 edits. I don't think my comment was out of line. Also I will note that Ecoleetage has interacted with the account in question.Nrswanson (talk) 16:42, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

:::12 edits in question, yes; all on widly disparate topics not related to this one. Yes, eco has interacted with him/her; he's interacted with me, as well. Ironho lds 16:46, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

::::We will just agree to disagree then. Sadly, from my experience on wikipedia with sock puppet users it raises red flags in my mind. I am not saying that suckpuppetry is necessarily going on here but I felt I had to mention to it. Also, this seems like a rather obscure article/debate for a new user to find. Nrswanson (talk) 16:49, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

:::A new account is not synonymous with an SPA, and this new editor has already made multiple edits on different articles. Yes, I interacted with him...first as part of my work in the Welcoming Committee, and then in fixing an unsourced reference that he placed in an article on Midnight Cowboy, and then in my pointing him to WP:RS in order to help in his future editing while thanking him for his contributions. The comment is not only out of line, but it is insulting to our new editor (who obviously followed me here a couple of hours after my posting). And your sock puppet accusation is emetic. I have to request that this AfD be withdrawn -- it is has devolved into character assassination. Ecoleetage (talk) 16:52, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

:::::No need to withdraw the AfD on those grounds; let it run its course. The accusation is very uncivil, however veiled, and the new user is most definitely not an SPA, which is an account created for the sole purpose of voting in this AfD/vandalising/introducing biased info/whatever. Previous valid contributions before any interaction with Eco rule this out. Ironho lds 16:54, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

::::::I have to agree with Ecoleetage here on one point. I feel that User:Nrswanson was out of line with that comment. However, I feel the AfD should run its point as the lack of etiquette shown by Nrswanson is not related to his original AfD commentary. Turlo Lomon (talk) 16:58, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

:::::::*I appologize to Ecoleetage. I should have assumed good faith. I was not intending to be uncivil. Unfortunately, I have caught several sock puppets in recent debates (which have all proven true through user checks) and it has somewhat jaded me. I will do my best to assume good faith in future.Nrswanson (talk) 16:59, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Strong Keep: On the basis of the section of his founding the Farm Credit of New Mexico scholarship programs when he was its CEO, he is notable enough for an article in Wikipedia; I think that the source cited in the section on that in the article clearly establishes his notability.[http://www.bizjournals.com/albuquerque/stories/2005/04/18/story5.html] The lede (first para.) of the article needs to be expanded to point out that notability. I may develop the sent. if I can find time to do so; if not, perhaps Ecoleetage et al. will develop the lede to include his most notable role. --NYScholar (talk) 17:26, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

:* Comment. I don't think the scholarship program is all that notable. It is only for the children of employees at the company and the scholarships provided are small.Nrswanson (talk) 17:30, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

::Comment A scholarship program for the children of U.S. farming families in this day and age is highly notable and very unusual. Ecoleetage (talk) 18:00, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

:Updated comment: I revised the lede (opening paragraph) as per WP:MOS to reflect his notability (as the article defines it) and reorganized the article to make it (I think) more coherent and easier to read. The source citations could still use conversion to citation templates. As someone who has worked on developing academic scholarship programs, I believe that the scholarship programs that he founded are significant and notable for residents of New Mexico, students at colleges and universities in that state and their parents, who are likely to have accounts at that particular credit union (lending institution), since it is the "largest" one in the state, according to the sources cited already in the article.--NYScholar (talk) 18:24, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Comment A wee bit of astroturfing going on [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ADoug&diff=234583452&oldid=234561053 here] and [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ANYScholar&diff=234578016&oldid=234455527 there]... Brianyoumans (talk) 18:45, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
Eco regularly asks people to take a look at RfA's to gain better consensus; he isn't looking for auto-follow votes. I'm asked sometimes and I regularly voice opinions counter to his with no "oh, well I just won't ask Ironholds again in the future" result; he honestly wants to gain better consensus, not recruit an army of meatpuppets. Ironho lds 18:53, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

::There is absolutely nothing unusual (or inappropriate) in asking people to weigh in on the merits of an AfD. In fact, the nominator for this article did the exact same thing here, to a far wider audience than my two contacts: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(people)]. And if I can quote the nominator from that: "In my opinion this is a borderline article under current guidelines, but I really don't think this sort of individual should be able to qualify for a wikipedia article." Ah, WP:IDONTLIKEIT returns! Ecoleetage (talk) 19:04, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

:::As the organizer and (at least historically) de facto coordinator of WikiProject Agriculture, it is reasonable to expect that I would like to know about any agricultural article that is AfD'd and I encourage Eco to post these at the project as well. Eco has done this in the past and I believe Eco knows that if I comment at all it may or may not support keeping the article. I usually don't get around to commenting and I don't have a particularly deep interest in bios, but it is entirely reasonable to let me know about it. It is highly questionable however to examine an editor's contributions looking for evidence of canvassing, when there is no outside evidence of it and even more so to make a suggestion of canvassing in a debate when you have evidence of only two editors being contacted and only one has commented (until now and I still haven't decided whether or how to comment on the substance). Please keep this discussion on the merits of the article.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 02:15, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

:Comment: The editing of the article that I took the time to do after being contacted by Ecoleetage is editing done in good faith, following WP:AGF. I would not have spent any of my time working on the article if I did not think that the subject notable enough for an article in Wikipedia. See the categories as well as the sources for indication of why the subject notable. The subject seems notable enough for an article in Wikipedia. It will appear in "what links here" via other Wikipedia articles linked in it as well so that people with interests in, e.g., New Mexico, can find it. I took it as a compliment from Ecoleetage that he asked me to consider commenting here. To edit the article was my own decision, not his. --NYScholar (talk) 19:09, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Keep Nothing wrong here. Shapiros10 ^{contact me}_{My work} 19:10, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
Keep: It seems to pass all that Eco says it does. Still, it could use sources; two of the five come from the company in question. Also, if he is notable, wouldn't company be as well? Not because notability is inherited, but it doesn't really make sense for the higher-ups of company to be notable, and the company to not be. I only bring this up because the company is red-linked. Leonard^(Bloom) 19:44, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

:Comment: I had already removed the red links; people are free to add articles on the credit institutions if they think them notable enough. Plenty of people in Wikipedia have articles about them including references to employers that do not have articles; frequently, the person is identifiable enough with a company that redirection occurs to the person, or vice versa. In this case, I don't see a problem in no articles on the credit institutions. That is why I removed the link from the companies. I'm leaving it up to other editors to decide whether or not to create articles for the New Mexico credit institutions, which are members of the Farm Credit Council. Just added that linked trade organization in new dev. of sec. before seeing comment from Leonard above. --NYScholar (talk) 19:49, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

:Comment: The statement by Leonard re: sources does not seem accurate to me; only one of the sources (cited only once) is published by one of the subject's employers; the others are all reliable, third-party publications, mostly news publications. They are all verifiable and verified. --NYScholar (talk) 19:54, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

::I just added Farm Credit of New Mexico as a new article. Ecoleetage (talk) 19:57, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Comment The $250,000 scholarship program which gives $2000 grants to children/grandchildren of its employees is relevant to the Credit Union and is mentioned in the Credit Union's article. It has little bearing on McAbee's notability. There is no indication that the scholarships go to farm families as NYScholar says above (unless the student's parent/grandparent works for the credit union. Edison2 (talk) 20:27, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

::Clarification The debate might be helped if people properly read the sourced material linked to the article. Farm Credit of New Mexico is not a credit union and has no connection to the credit union industry. The scholarship fund is not for the Farm Credit employees' families, but for the children and granchildren of the customers who use Farm Credit for their financial services needs -- who are all farmers and ranchers. It was under McAbee's leadership that the scholarship was created -- the program didn't create itself, it was through his efforts and to pretend he has no association with it is astonishing. And, besides, do you know any financial services company that has scholarships for its customers' children and grandchildren? No offense to all present, but this AfD is among the most peculiar I've ever seen -- which is odd since this has to be one of the most benign articles imaginable. Ecoleetage (talk) 20:48, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

::(ec): Clarification: from source: "Farm Credit of New Mexico gave $250,000 Dec. 9 to endow a scholarship for members' children and grandchildren who attend New Mexico State University. From left are Bruce McAbee, Farm Credit of New Mexico president and CEO; Joe Clavel, chairman of Farm Credit's board of directors; Michael Martin, NMSU president; and Lowell Catlett, interim dean of NMSU's College of Agriculture and Home Economics. )Photo courtesy of Ben LaMarca, University Communications.)"--photo caption. --NYScholar (talk) 20:51, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

::Clarification: Members of that "agricultural credit" institution get loans for agricultural projects; the members are in agricultural industry in New Mexico: [http://www.farmcreditnm.com/farmcredit.asp About Farm Credit of New Mexico]]; the previous comments about there being "no indication" etc. is simply wrong. --NYScholar (talk) 20:55, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Re: NYScholar- Sorry for the confusion; my comment was not to say that the sources were unreliable, but to point out that as the time I posted my opinion, their were only five sources, and two appeared to be primary sources. I only meant to mention that more seconadary sources would be preferable. As of now, there are 8 sources, 2 of which are still primary. Number [http://www.fmfarmcredit.com/Default.aspx?pageid=21#CompanyProfile three] and [http://www.fmfarmcredit.com/uploads/FMFCConnectionNLJuly2008.pdf four] link back to the company's site. Again, my comment was not to remove them, but to advocate the search for my secondary sources. Leonard^(Bloom) 22:16, 27 August 2008 (UTC)]

::Reply: There is no problem with using the company's profile as a source in an article about someone who works for it. That is not unreliable or self-published by the subject himself. There seems to be some confusion here. The sources are being used to establish that he held or holds the positions that the Wikipedia article states that he held. That is verification of the statements of his positions. This is not an article about the companies; it is an article about the person (a biography) who worked or works for them. He did not publish the material about the companies; plus, the trade organization is also being used a source of information about the company/companies for which the subject worked/works. Again, these are reliable third-party published sources (they are not published by the subject himself or by the company, other than its official website which is a reliable source about the company in terms of dates of foundation, people who work for it, and so on. There is no lack of neutral point of view in simply establishing basic biographical information or the notability of the person (that he is a valued employee of the company or companies for which he worked or works). --NYScholar (talk) 07:53, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Keep This passes notability. Filmwallah (talk) 05:47, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
AfD is a discussion, not a vote; could you maybe weigh in on the debating? Ironho lds 06:15, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Keep - The articles about him and the scholarship program he created are substantial and constitute reliable sources for the purpose of establishing notabilty. Also, he is notable enough that his appointment was covered in the Knight Ridder/Tribune Business News. -- Whpq (talk) 16:28, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Keep Why in the world was this nominated? It passes WP:BIO and WP:RS. Director33 (talk) 17:50, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
Keep -- the references provided in Bruce_McAbee#References indicate sufficient coverage of this person in third-party reliable sources to establish a presumption of his notability per the general notability guideline. John254 00:29, 1 September 2008 (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.