From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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. While multiple editors felt NOTINHERITED applied, consensus was reached that this article meets the GNG. If desired, merge/redirect discussions may continue at the talk page. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 02:20, 14 April 2023 (UTC) reply

Ted Jorgensen

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

Ted Jorgensen (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Draft that avoided the AFC Review process. Topic is NN via WP:1E and WP:INHERIT. UtherSRG (talk) 16:02, 27 March 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Comment. I have auto patrol rights. To frame this as "avoiding" AFC seems to suggest a misunderstanding of process. CT55555( talk) 16:09, 27 March 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep (as article creator) the suggestion that is is notable for one event is easily disproven, he is clearly notable for multiple events, that fall neatly into two groups of events. The first one is his circus work in the 1960s which was making news for three years. The second is his family connections, which Brad Stone (journalist) wrote about (significant coverage) for his book The Everything Store. That created notability in 2012 when Stone identified him and made news in 2013 and 2014, and as recently as 2021. WP:NOT1E explains clearly how 1E does not apply here, but the main thing is that he made news over various years, for more than one event. Even by 1963, he was noted in news for three (similar, but distinct) events. The one event thing would require him to be a low profile individual. People doing news interviews on national channels are not low profile. See WP:LOWKEY.
The link to WP:NOTINHERITED is interesting, because it's part of an essay called Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions. It's OK to cite essays here (I did already) but it's only relevant to cite if I someone claimed his notability was inherited. I quote Inherent notability is the idea that something qualifies for an article merely because it exists, even if zero independent reliable sources have ever taken notice of the subject.. That is not the case here, nobody made such a claim, he meets WP:GNG which is the real measure of notability. He does so due to the significant coverage in multiple reliable sources:
  1. Three news items 1961 to 1963.
  2. 2013 news: https://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/2013/10/10/bezos-amazon-biological-father/2959633/
  3. Significant coverage in the book The Everything Store
  4. 2018 news: https://www.chicagotribune.com/news/ct-met-amazon-bezos-dad-chicago-inc-20180220-story.html
  5. 2014 news: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LP80jo1_UgU&ab_channel=InsideEdition (note based on an interview, note date of 2019 when it went online, but was broadcast 2014) CT55555( talk) 16:22, 27 March 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per WP:INHERIT and the negative side of WP:LOWKEY. Any argument that he did not inherit his notability is unconvincing, because why would anyone talk about him otherwise? His own life is overwhelmingly average and non-notable despite being in a book about his famous relative. The article tries to spruce things up with tidbits like his award from a local hobby club and a broken jaw in 1972, and those easily fail the "significant" language at WP:SIGCOV despite appearing in newspapers. I also have a local club award and a broken bone in my past but neither is newsworthy or encyclopedic. An article about a regular guy's regular life adds no value to Wikipedia, and it violates policy too. The previous redirect of his name to the Jeff Bezos article could be restored as well. --- DOOMSDAYER520 ( TALK| CONTRIBS) 16:28, 27 March 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect to The Everything Store. While I have no issue with CT55555's creation of this article or any others without going through AfC, I don't think Jorgensen is independently notable Star Mississippi 16:35, 27 March 2023 (UTC) reply
    Why that destination? Before moving the draft, the location was occupied with a redirect to Jeff Bezos. Would that suffice? - UtherSRG (talk) 16:43, 27 March 2023 (UTC) reply
    That would be fine too. To me it seemed more natural since their connection was identified in tandem with the book's research, and per CT's note above that he's covered therein, but I don't feel strongly. Star Mississippi 16:50, 27 March 2023 (UTC) reply
  • I'm leaning keep. I don't think the information here works well shoe-horned into either the Jeff Bezos article, or the book (he's not really the subject of either), and yet he seems to me to be the sort of person that a random member of the public might well be interested in, especially given his connection with Bezos. No, notability is not inherited. But if other sources write about someone's connection because they find it interesting (e.g. that Jeff Bezos' father was a unicyclist) then it becomes notable in our terms because of the sourcing (basically, good sources trump almost everything else here). No, just at the human level of thinking what our readers want, I think they'd want this article, and since it's backed up by references, I think it's okay to keep. Elemimele ( talk) 20:17, 27 March 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. CT55555( talk) 23:43, 27 March 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep due to WP:GNG. WP:INHERIT has nothing to do with article content, it is not a valid rationale on its own. Read the essay it says "This section is not a content guideline or policy." INHERIT is "an argument to avoid during deletion discussions" ie. "Keep because he is the father of Jeff Bezos", would be INHERIT argument to avoid. Nobody is making that argument. Sources and content are not regulated by inheritance, if so please show me where. -- Green C 02:48, 28 March 2023 (UTC) reply
Scroll down the WP:INHERIT essay some more and you will see "notability is usually neither inherited nor inherent". Therefore it can be argued here that Mr. Jorgensen is non-notable because any media interest in his story is inherited from his famous relative. An essay can be cited in a discussion like this when it is a part of a larger reasoning process, or else the essay wouldn't be here in the first place. --- DOOMSDAYER520 ( TALK| CONTRIBS) 14:20, 29 March 2023 (UTC) reply
That's true that notability is not inherently inherited, that's why the essay exists, one can't simply say "Keep because father of a famous son", we should avoid that argument. However the essay does not say to avoid sources ie. core policies such as RS and V. If a source considers someone notable for coverage, that is what notability is. The essay says "Notability requires verifiable evidence". We got that. -- Green C 14:59, 29 March 2023 (UTC) reply
@ GreenC is exactly correct. Nobody made the argument that he is inherently notable, instead the his notability stems from WP:GNG pass. As per the essay anyway: Individuals in close, personal relationships with famous people (including politicians) can have an independent article even if they are known solely for such a relationship, but only if they pass WP:GNG. CT55555( talk) 15:45, 29 March 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per the WP:SIGCOV. The nominator has used an essay as a rationale for deletion. Notability is established by policies and guidelines. Lightburst ( talk) 03:09, 28 March 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect to either Jeff Bezos#Early life or The Everything Store. Being a circus performer does not automatically confer notability (unless you're a big star, and that doesn't appear to be the case here), and his relationship to Bezos falls under INHERIT. Clarityfiend ( talk) 08:26, 28 March 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Appears to pass GNG, and the AfC is invalid rationale for deletion. Seacactus 13 ( talk) 19:03, 28 March 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect Aside from events related to Jeff Bezos, the topic doesn't meet WP:ANYBIO. MrsSnoozyTurtle 22:18, 29 March 2023 (UTC) reply
    I don't think anyone claimed it meets WP:ANYBIO. I do assert that it meets WP:GNG. CT55555( talk) 01:29, 30 March 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep If I understand the problem here correctly, the question is if we would keep the article even if he was not the father of Jeff Bezos. In my opinion, the answer is yes. According to the article, Ted Jorgensen was the president of the first club in the world which offered unicycle hockey as a new sport. I think that's notable. RolfSander ( talk) 08:26, 30 March 2023 (UTC) reply
    Per WP:INHERITORG, being president of a (marginally) notable unicycle hockey club would not give Jorgensen notability. Vladimir.copic ( talk) 22:42, 4 April 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Notability is being claimed on two fronts here:
  1. Unicylcing - Sources about Jorgensen's "unicycling career" are from the same small local newspaper from the early 60s, are ~3 paragraphs long, focus on the club (not Jorgensen), and only mention Jorgensen as one name in a list or in passing. A few other bits of information (like unsuccessfully auditioning for a TV show) come from books about Bezos which I will go into next. This does not pass GNG as we would not have articles about any of the other club members named in these sources solely on the strength of these small newspaper clippings. Information like the club being the "world's first unicycle hockey club" comes from a source that doesn't even mention Jorgensen.
  2. Bezos' dad - Sources solely focussing on Bezos or Jorgensen's relationship to Bezos is an example of WP:BIO1E and does not demonstrate general notability. If we set our notability requirements to value these kind of sources, the parents of any notable person that has had a book-length biography written about them would meet GNG.
Both of these together do not equal much that cannot be summarised in a sentence or two in Jeff Bezos. Vladimir.copic ( talk) 22:50, 2 April 2023 (UTC) reply
I'm just giving some clarity for those who are claiming SIGCOV based on the unicycling coverage. Here are the sources used and the only sentences in which they mention Jorgensen (emphasis mine of course):
  • https://thehockeynews.com/news/the-weird-wild-and-wacky-world-of-unicycle-hockey - does not mention Jorgensen at all.
  • Albuquerque Tribune, March 26, 1959 Page 41 - Perry Pinkerton is president, Ted Jorgensen vice president, Margaret Bradley secretary, and Jimmy Cellic treasurer.
  • Albuquerque Tribune. 25 March 1961. p. 8 - Awards will be presented to Rachel Westerman, most creative entry; Tony Stanphill, anniversary race winner; Ted Jorgensen, most versatile rider.
  • Albuquerque Tribune. 27 March 1962. p. 20 - Ted Jorgensen will be elected as president; Terry Bradley as vice president; Margaret Bradley as secretary, and Perry Pinkerton as treasurer.
  • Albuquerque Tribune. 15 February 1963 - Team members include Terry Williams, Rachel Westerman, Linda Robey, Tommy Ratcliff, Susan Bradley, Perry Pinkerton, Margaret Bradley and Ted Jorgensen.
Are we seriously going to treat that this as SIGCOV? Is this really encyclopedic information? If so, surely we should have articles for Margaret Bradley (unicyclist) and Perry Pinkerton. Vladimir.copic ( talk) 22:57, 5 April 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Comment: There are strong policy based arguments for keeping the article, and there are also strong policy based arguments for deletion. Ultimately what it will come down to, and what consensus needs to be reached on, is whether or not the subject meets WP:NOTABILITY criteria. Some things to take into account include both the amount and range of coverage the subject receives by WP:RS. The quality of sources is also important, with only reliable secondary sources providing WP:SIGCOV eligible to demonstrate WP:NOTABILITY. Demonstrating that the subject either does or does not satisfy WP:GNG will also be of tantamount importance as the discussion turns towards consensus. Essentially, demonstration of notability will support keeping the article, whereas failing to demonstrate notability should result in deletion. Discussion needs to focus on whether or not the subject satisfies notability and WP:SIGCOV criteria, as sufficient SIGCOV would effectively demonstrate notability - which, if the case, would not warrant deletion insert the relevant policies. On the other hand, if it is decided that existing subject coverage is WP:ROUTINE and fails SIGCOV, there would certainly be a strong case for deletion. Therefore, assessing subject notability and coming to an agreement on the quality of sources will be of utmost importance in arriving at a policy-based consensus in regards to the outcome of this discussion. While I currently see a consensus developing, the delete and keep arguments have basis in policy and should be taken into account by the closer. The veracity of the existing sources needs careful scrutiny. Coverage amounting to WP:TRIVIAL or WP:ROUTINE would fall short of WP:SIGCOV and be grounds for deletion. Keeping would require that SIGCOV is established to demonstrate notability according to WP:GNG among other relevant guidelines. Discussion needs to focus on whether or not the subject satisfies notability and WP:SIGCOV criteria, as sufficient SIGCOV would effectively demonstrate notability - which, if the case, would not warrant deletion insert the relevant policies. On the other hand, if it is decided that existing subject coverage is WP:ROUTINE and fails SIGCOV, there would certainly be a strong case for deletion. Shawn Teller (hy/hym) ( talk) 14:25, 3 April 2023 (UTC) WP:SOCKSTRIKE – Extraordinary Writ ( talk) 18:49, 5 April 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. Appears to be notable with sigcov in several different places over the period of several years. BeanieFan11 ( talk) 14:55, 3 April 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete: Fails GNG and BIO. None of the sources show IS RS with SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth. NOTINHERITED.  //  Timothy ::  talk  21:01, 4 April 2023 (UTC) reply
    Not even the numerous pages discussing him in The Everything Store? BeanieFan11 ( talk) 21:11, 4 April 2023 (UTC) reply
    That all seems directly connected to Bezos, the relatives of notable people have to have independent notability. I could see a short mention in Bezos article, but I don't see sources for a stand alone article.  //  Timothy ::  talk  21:26, 4 April 2023 (UTC) reply
    You are writing as if there is some guideline that demands people have notability unaffiliated with famous relatives. The only "independence" required is in the normal sense = not from sources they are involved in. WP:NOTINHERITED is just an essay with a list of arguments to avoid at AFD, ironically. And even WP:NOTINHERITED opines that people can have an independent article even if they are known solely for such a relationship, but only if they pass WP:GNG. CT55555( talk) 21:35, 4 April 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - Has WP:SIGCOV and is notable for more than one thing. KatoKungLee ( talk) 00:41, 5 April 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep- Many good articles have been deleted because of bias judgements. With source above, it qualify WP:GNG that should be the center focus not unrealistic comments. Robin499 ( talk) 19:40, 5 April 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seraphimblade Talk to me 01:29, 6 April 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Keep: (1) as per convincing argument by Elemimele, and (2) sufficient sources to build an article, pass WP:GNG and thus meeting WP:INHERIT Individuals in close, personal relationships with famous people (including politicians) can have an independent article even if they are known solely for such a relationship, but only if they pass WP:GNG. Resonant Distortion 16:34, 13 April 2023 (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.
Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Ted_Jorgensen&oldid=1149726899"