Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/George B. Jackson

{{Not a ballot}}

:{{la|George B. Jackson}} – (View AfDView log)

:({{Find sources|George B. Jackson}})

The principal source of this article, Suzanne O. Campbell, of San Angelo, Texas, requests that this article be deleted on the grounds that the article conflicts with a potential book on the subject. Billy Hathorn (talk) 15:02, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

:*This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 15:48, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 18:37, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 18:37, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 18:37, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — -- Cirt (talk) 20:11, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

• Query: In what sense does this article "conflict" with a potential book? And, given the copyright and licensing agreements entered into willingly by every Wikipedia editor every time they edit an article, why is a potential commercial consideration a valid reason for removing a well-written, properly researched article from the encyclopedia? (Pending compelling answers to these questions, Keep.) - Dravecky (talk) 20:22, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

• The material for the article was largely taken from a public lecture given by Suzanne O. Campbell at the West Texas Historical Association meeting on April 2, 2011, in Lubbock, Texas. She requested that the article be deleted because she is planning to write or is writing a book on the subject. She had also given a similar lecture in February in San Angelo, Texas, before that city's genealogical society. Billy Hathorn (talk) 22:04, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
• I'm still not clear on how a 500-ish word article would prevent any author from writing a book about the subject. Nor am I at all comfortable with the notion of deleting a cited article about a notable person simply to meet a third-party's commercial objectives. The information was presented publicly in a lecture. (Insert your favorite metaphor about the unringing of bells here.) - Dravecky (talk) 23:39, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

:I agree with you, Dravecky; I was honoring Ms. Campbell's request. Billy Hathorn (talk) 00:01, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

::Ah, then my "Keep" !vote stands. Thanks. - Dravecky (talk) 01:35, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

• Keep per Dravecky. No valid rationale given for deletion, and no apparent grounds for doing so.--JayJasper (talk) 18:17, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
• Keep I don't see why we should delete an article because someone wants to write a book about the subject of the article. Qrsdogg (talk) 18:47, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
• Delete I am the principal source of the article. The book is an scholarly endeavor and not for commercial gain. This is an research endeavor that spans over 15 years. If I had wanted it on Wikipedia, I would have put it there. My main objection to the article is that it is full of incorrect information. I do not wish to correct Mr. Hathorn's mistakes. At best one-half of his 500-ish word article is correct.Scampbel1928 (talk) 16:16, 15 June 2011 (UTC) — Scampbel1928 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
• Comment: Errors in an article are cause for correction, not deletion, and I'm surprised to find a scholar who prefers that a subject on which she is an expert remain improperly covered (since this article is almost certainly going to be kept) rather than correct the record, especially on so widely read a site as Wikipedia. - Dravecky (talk) 16:35, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
• Comment: It appears that the issue is with Mr. Hathorn's inability to accurately portray the information obtained in an unpublished secondary source. I believe the information in this article will remain inaccurate until Mr. Hathorn or someone else chooses to actually research primary sources on the subject. To imply that the author of this article holds no responsibility for publishing inaccurate information is unrealistic. As far as I can discern, the only person capable of correcting the information, Ms. Campbell, refuses to divulge the fruits of her years-long research endeavor on such an ephemeral medium. Liberalinwesttexas (talk) 17:02, 15 June 2011 (UTC) — Liberalinwesttexas (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
• Delete In my opinion, if the principal source of the article wanted the information available through wikipedia she would have put it there. Since this is not the case, the responsibility to supply accurate information falls to Mr. Hathorn who, it appears, has done no research on the subject. It is absurd to now place the burden of correcting Mr. Hathorn's inaccuracies on someone attempting to produce a solid scholarly work rather than an encyclopedic entry on a website of this nature. What I cannot figure out is what motivates someone to attend a lecture and then presume that they have enough knowledge to adequately write an article about the topic.Cathop (talk) 17:32, 15 June 2011 (UTC) — Cathop (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
• Comment: "There are errors in this brief article but I won't tell you what they are because I'm writing a book" is neither very scholarly or a valid reason for deletion. Would you accept a book review that said "The book is about half-true and should be recalled by the publisher and pulped"... and then expect the publisher to do so on that basis alone? I would hope not, if only for the sake of all the paper that would be wasted. - Dravecky (talk) 19:24, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
• Comment: Keep the article as is, but remove any reference to the presentation by Ms. Campbell. There is no way to check the source, as it was presented orally, so there is absolutely no way to verify any of the information directly (outside of actual research, which the wiki-community seems to abhor). I am appalled by the blatant disregard for accuracy displayed by this group of participants of this discussion. Dravecky suggests that once information is on this website, regardless of its accuracy, it is set-in-stone and the responsibility of the principal source's author not the author of the wikipage to correct the problem. This case seems somewhat unusual in the sense that there are no published secondary sources that can be consulted. Dravecky has continued to throw the "scholar card" up attempting to appeal to some sense of obligation from Ms. Campbell. Ironically, the "scholar card" should be used against Billy Hathorn, a Ph.D. in history, who is allowing this misrepresentation to continue. The presentation was made in a scholarly setting with an implicit understanding that that is how it would be used. Liberalinwesttexas (talk) 19:57, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
• Reply: It's fine to point out that there are errors in the article and nobody is claiming Ms, Campbell is responsible for fixing them... but what are the errors? I don't know either Ms. Campbell or Mr. Hathorn, as you apparently do, so I can only work with the edits made to the article as it exists. As they stand, claims of error are vague and unsubstantiated. Surely more effort has been expended here trying to delete the article than it could have taken to fix (or at least tag) it. - Dravecky (talk) 20:55, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
• Reply: The fact remains that if you remove the citation of the unpublished presentation by Ms. Campbell the entire article is baseless. As I have pointed out, there are no published secondary sources that can be used to back up any assertion made in this article. If the goal of this encyclopedia is to present accurate, verifiable information that is well-written, this entry is an utter failure. Any college freshman knows that any claim must be backed up by a source, how is this any different? There is no way that I can expect to provide a better account because I, like Billy Hathorn, have not done any research on George Jackson. Unlike the author of this entry, however, I do not presume to have the requisite knowledge to write an accurate article on George Jackson nor correct this one. I am new to the wikipedia community. I am solely commenting on this thread because it affects Ms. Campbell, whom I do know. I can tell you as I have been writing this rebuttal that I noticed the "Encyclopedic content must be verifiable" statement that appears directly below the editing window. If any one of you can produce the document upon which this entire article is based I will drop the subject completely. As Ms. Campbell's article has never been published, I believe you will have a difficult time. Furthermore, the article that defines "verifiable" also says that the article cannot be based on original research. If that is true, then only secondary sources are applicable for this encyclopedia. As there are no published secondary sources, and Ms. Campbell's research in most certainly original, then it stands to reason that this entry has been published prematurely. For the integrity of this encyclopedia and all it stand for, I suggest the removal of this article until the requisite sources are available. Liberalinwesttexas (talk) 22:24, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
• Welcome to users Cathop, Liberalinwesttexas, and Scampbel1928 who have all chosen this discussion for their first (and so far only) edit to Wikipedia. - Dravecky (talk) 19:13, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
• :Comment: SPI has been filed at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Scampbel1928. Not 100% obvious, but certainly suspicious. --Kinu ^t/_c 21:33, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

• :Comment: I rechecked my notes, and everything in the article appears correct. Billy Hathorn (talk) 22:45, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
• :*Reply: Just because you took notes at a lecture does not make the source you cite verifiable according to wikipedia standards: "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—whether readers can check that material in Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors think it is true. To show that it is not original research, all material added to articles must be attributable to a reliable, published source appropriate for the content in question."http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:VER Perhaps you can consult with published peer-reviewed secondary sources to back up your assertions just like any other person in the academic world. Liberalinwesttexas (talk) 23:05, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

• :Comment: The material is primary but becomes secondary when released in a public lecture. I can't imagine what errors are in the article. The material is not complicated and was quite easy to put together in a short article. Billy Hathorn (talk) 23:13, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
• :*Reply: That does not change the fact that the source is not verifiable according to Wikipedia standards, and thus should not be used. No one except for you can read the notes that you took during the public presentation of an unpublished paper that has yet to be peer-reviewed. This article has no verifiable source and should be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Liberalinwesttexas (talk • contribs) 23:27, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

:So, it would be public information only if a reporter from the Avalanche-Journal had written an article about the lecture, not a participant at the conference? What about a radio broadcast on a subject; can one take notes from that and use it on Wikipedia? Billy Hathorn (talk) 01:06, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

• Reply: I don't understand why you are insistent on the use of hypothetical situations that are not similar to this instance. The paper that you took notes on was not published, nor were your notes. In each of the examples that you ask about, there is a public record that others can access. That being said, the rules for verification are specific and if you read them there will be no further question on this subject. I do not believe a newspaper article written as a summary of an unpublished biographical paper is "appropriate for the content in question" as no historian would accept that as a secondary source. Perhaps a radio broadcast would be acceptable if it presented its sources. Your personal notebook is not a verifiable source. Liberalinwesttexas (talk) 15:21, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

:Questions:The lecturer says that 50 perdent of the article is incorrect.

• Is it correct that George Jackson was born in Brunswick County, VA, in 1850?
• Was Jackson a buffalo soldier at Fort Concho?
• Did 16 saloons in San Angelo ca. 1880 sell the average man in the city 19.4 gallons of whisky per year?
• Was Jackson discharged from the Army at Fort Duncan?
• Did a Josephine Thompson stab the buffalo soldier Albert Ford to death in Jackson's saloon?
• Did Jackson twice a year pay $25 to police for operating a house of ill repute?
• Did prostitutes pay $2.50 twice a year for vagrancy at Jackson's saloon?
• Did Jackson marry a woman from San Antonio named Mary who mostly lived threreafter in San Antonio?
• Was Jackson a petit juror in San Angelo in 1884?
• Was Jackson a black public school trustee in 1885?
• Did Jackson purchase ranch land at a bargain to the west of San Angelo than then lease his holdings?
• Did Jackson address the Republican State Convention in Austin in 1894?
• Did Jackson speak out against the Wilson-Gorman Tariff of 1893?
• Did Jackson attend the McKinley inaugural in 1897?
• Was Jackson McKinley's appointee as customs inspector in Presidio, TX?
• Did Jackson work well with whites and Democrats?
• Did Jackson die in the home of a friend of congenital heart disease at 50? Was this between San Angelo and San Antonio?
• Did the Jacksons have no children?
• Was Jackson a Methodist and a Mason?
• Is Jackson buried at a black Masonic cemetery in San Antonio (not the Alamo Masonic Cemetery there}?
• Did Jackson have a business partner named Joe Selby, who died in San Angelo, date not given?
• For the article to be half-wrong ten of the preceding questions would have to be answered "No." I recall that all of these points in the lecture were answered "Yes". Billy Hathorn (talk) 19:20, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

:Comment: "Frederick Jackson Turner's Frontier Thesis of American history was presented to a special meeting of the American Historical Association at the World's Columbian Exposition on Chicago, Illinois, and published later that year first in Proceedings of the State Historical Society of Wisconsin, then in the Annual Report of the American Historical Association. It has been subsequently reprinted and anthologized many times, and was incorporated into Turner's 1921 book, The Frontier in American History, as Chapter I."

So, would Turner's thesis have been off limits if it had been limited to a lecture at the historical conference in Chicago? Billy Hathorn (talk) 13:20, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

• Reply: Yet another hypothetical that does not really apply to this situation. The rules of this website are specific, and no amount of hypothetical situations can change the fact that the sole source of this wikipedia article does not meet the standards of being verifiable. I believe that this entry into the encyclopedia is premature. It will be appropriate when Ms. Campbell or some other historian PUBLISHES an article which can serve as a VERIFIABLE source. Liberalinwesttexas (talk) 15:54, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

• Reply: Just for the record, neither your recollections nor your notes are correct.Scampbel1928 (talk) 16:25, 17 June 2011 (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.