Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2014 July 17

< Wikipedia:Reference desk | Archives | Humanities
Humanities desk
< July 16 << Jun | July | Aug >> July 18 >
Welcome to the Wikipedia Humanities Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.


July 17

edit

Historical names for the House Judiciary Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, etc

edit

What were the historical names for the United States House Judiciary Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, Homeland Security and Investigations? I'm guessing it was originally just called "the Subcommittee on Crime" before buzz words like "terrorism" and "homeland security" got tacked on. So I'm wondering when did the name extensions happen.WinterWall (talk) 00:53, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

For this kind of thing, the Congressional Directory is invaluable; it lists all committees and subcommittees and their membership, as well as tons of other things, ranging from the office of each member of Congress (location, phone numbers, senior staffers' names) to miscellaneous things such as the name, telephone number, and full address (with ZIP+4 code!) for the head of the field office of the Department of Housing and Urban Development in Lubbock, Texas. The Government Printing Office has Congressional Directories online for each Congress since the 105th (which was elected in 1996), and the 105th's section on House committees confirms your guess that it was then the Subcommittee on Crime. Check the GPO website for more recent Congresses, and check Worldcat to find printed copies of older editions in a library near you. Nyttend (talk) 01:10, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the help! By going through the Congressional Directories I found that it was still the "Subcommittee on Crime" on October 2002. By July 2003, it became the "Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security". WinterWall (talk) 01:49, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  Resolved

Where did the "coffee" in the Coffee Club come from?

edit

Uniting for Consensus is nicknamed the Coffee Club. Where did the coffee part come from?

Among them only Indonesia is a significant producer of coffee and none of them are major coffee consumers on a per capita basis.

So far, I found only two explanations online and neither of them make a lot of sense:

1. "They are known as the Coffee Club because it is reminiscent of the powerful lobby opposing the expansion of permanent membership in the early 1990s."[1]

2. "The group was nicknamed the "Coffee Club", supposedly because its members would rather disrupt the meetings on the subject than engage in effective negotiations."[2]WinterWall (talk) 10:33, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Historical person obsessed with clocks

edit

I remember my father telling the story of a historical person (king, perhaps) who spent the last years of his life trying to keep all the clocks in his castle or mansion synchronized. I've not been able to identify the person through a web search, and remember little else than what I've written above. Does this fragment of a story ring a bell with anyone? --NorwegianBlue talk 12:31, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Charles I of Spain. Nyttend (talk) 14:04, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The article doesn't explicitly state that he tried to keep all his clocks in sync. But is it possible he was just trying to get them to clang all at the same time, to avoid what I might call the "row-row-row your boat" effect? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 14:28, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks a million Nyttend! That was fast. --NorwegianBlue talk 14:40, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
See also Sandringham time, instituted by King Edward VII of the UK, maintained by his son George V, and done away with by his son Edward VIII. -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 21:20, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
An early attempt at "daylight saving time", it would seem. Had he made it an hour instead of a half-hour, maybe it would have stuck. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:24, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Jack, nice story. I'm sure that Carlos I is the person I'm looking for though. There are many things in the article that fit with what I remembered from the story, but so vaguely that I didn't include them when writing the question. The king had abdicated or been thrown out of office. He lived in a house where there were many clocks. The fact that he was a Habsburger also fits, my father had a special interest for the Habsburgers. Now, all I need is a source for the "keeping in sync" part of the story. I'll do a targeted search in my father's bookshelves at the next opportunity! --NorwegianBlue talk
I found a website that tells the story pretty much as I remember it:
The attempt to make his clocks keep time together is said to have been one of the daily occupations of the retired emperor, and the adjustment of his clocks and watches gave him so much trouble that he is said to have one day remarked that it was absurd to try and make men think alike, when, do what he would, he could not make two of his timepieces agree.
From [formerly useful web site which has begun to promote fake user support scams, removed by User:Jc3s5h 25 July 2017 12:05 UT]. --NorwegianBlue talk 23:03, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"My Grandfather's Clock" isn't quite in sync with everything else here, but sort of coincides with a lot. Figured I'd mention it. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:23, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Similarly, it put me in mind of "the Prince’s mother had once had a dream that her son would either be killed by a sheep or else by a clock falling on him. For that reason the Prince never kept a sheep in his park or a clock in his palace."[3] Marnanel (talk) 09:22, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
And that reminded me that a certain prince had reminded me to beware spinning wheels. And since coincidences love company, I also mentioned him (though not by name) an hour or so ago, in a comment about spinning yarns. Weird timing, indeed. InedibleHulk (talk) 09:35, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Even stranger that you were on that talk page, Marnanel. Finland is not Sweden. InedibleHulk (talk) 10:25, 20 July 2014 (UTC) [reply]
Don't similar harmonic oscillators such as pair of pendulums lock phase when they are loosely coupled? I swear I've heard descriptions of pendulum clocks keeping in sync due to the vibrations carried through the wall they are mounted on. A quick search didn't find actual stories of it happening, just mathematical descriptions of the phenomenon and some simulations. Of course, once you have hundreds of them in your home, especially with different pendulum periods, it isn't the same situation. Katie R (talk) 12:49, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Malaysian airline crash in Ukraine

edit

I was shocked to see the air space over the active war zone in Ukraine is not off limits to commercial aircraft. What are the standards the European agency that regulates air traffic uses, to determine where planes can fly safely ? StuRat (talk) 18:02, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I just came here to ask this very question. Is it ever considered standard operating procedure for civilian planes to be flying above a war? If so, I'm amazed. Obviously, the blame lies with whomsoever issued the order to open fire without knowing what they were looking at, but I'm genuinely surprised that the plane was even there in the first place. --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 18:13, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It's been discussed on the news. The view was that commercial aircraft fly at such high altitudes that normal weaponry would not affect them. Only highly sophisticated weapons of the kind normally used only by governments would by a threat. Paul B (talk) 18:23, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I dunno, but it seems like a big assumption was made in deciding that the Ukrainian government side wasn't going to decide to be trigger-happy idiots and assume that it was a Russian plane in their airspace supplying the separatists or something... --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 18:35, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
How likely is it that a Russian plane would be flying west to east? Regardless, CBS was showing some type of made-in-Russia missile launcher which is capable of hitting targets that high, along with the assumption that Russia has been supplying arms to eastern Ukraine. Far as I know, there has been no official determination of who or what caused the mid-air explosion, i.e. a missile vs. a bomb vs. a fuel tank fault as per that one off Long Island in the mid-1990s. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:43, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"How likely is it that a Russian plane would be flying west to east?" - if it was flying back where it came from, having already dropped some stuff off it would be, rite? --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 19:51, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
See and hear https://ca.news.yahoo.com/video/abc-news-plus-special-report-220000361.html.
—Wavelength (talk) 19:41, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I meant from western Ukraine to eastern Ukraine. And if it already dropped off its cargo, why shoot it down? Anyway, news reports are now saying it was definitely a missile. If they can prove it was a Russian-made missile, there will be hell to pay. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:11, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
On the bright side, it may lead to technological safety advances. Like last time, with GPS. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:44, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Actually nothing much seems to have come from last time Nil Einne (talk) 23:48, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Right. I meant the last time the Russians did it. If Russians did it. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:51, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Then there's the possibility that Malaysian Airlines itself is the target. Two mysterious incidents within months of each other. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 00:44, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe a target. Maybe unlucky. Maybe, like the Washington Post acknowledged that other last time, the pilot simply saw no reason to not live dangerously. The only thing that's certain is we're going to hear a lot about maybe again. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:55, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe the Burrows family of Queensland are being targetted. -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 21:34, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If I were an Aussie, I'd only fly where Qantas could take me, since they have a much better safety record. Hopefully they know not to fly over war zones. StuRat (talk) 21:40, 18 July 2014 (UTC) [reply]
I agree, Rain Man. Although, to be fair, nobody is suggesting that Malaysian Airlines is in any way responsible for what happened yesterday. Were any of the passengers concerned about their flight path over Ukraine? I doubt it, because I doubt any of them knew. Is this the sort of information airlines normally volunteer to intending passengers? I doubt it, because nobody could have predicted that such an unspeakable crime would ever have occurred, except in hindsight, and we know what predictions in hindsight are worth. -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 22:06, 18 July 2014 (UTC) [reply]
I disagree that nobody could predict it. Certainly nobody could predict an attack was 100% certain, but predicting that there is an increased risk in flying over a war zone where 3 aircraft had already been shot down is a no-brainer. Qantas chose to avoid the area, for this reason: [4]. They didn't obtain their excellent safety record by taking unnecessary chances. StuRat (talk) 03:41, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Most everyone chose to divert around the war zone. As noted in this, posted farther down by another editor, the reason that's liable to get the blame is money - it costs more to fly around Ukraine than over it. So it seems that the bean-counters overrode good sense at that airline. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 04:02, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
But even considering economics alone, the cost of the loss of a plane with all on board, in terms of the plane's value, the amount they are sued for, the loss of bookings from those who have lost faith in the airline, and the subsequent drop in their stock price, even if there was only a 1 in a million chance of this happening, it might still not have been worth the risk to save that fuel cost. StuRat (talk) 03:29, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That's the thing about risk. No matter what the percentages are, each time is something new. You either fail or succeed, and that outcome influences the number, not the other way around. 100% of the time that taking a risk pays off, it was totally worth it. In this case, it was absolutely not. It's why that "Past performance does not guarantee future results" disclaimer is so prevalent in stock markets. The numbers are mostly for bedazzlement. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:07, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at the past record is only one way to determine risk, and not a good choice for infrequent events. For example, we've never had a global thermonuclear war, but that doesn't mean the risk is zero. The Doomsday Clock attempted to assess the risk by other methods. StuRat (talk) 04:22, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, two minutes to midnight. But does anyone really know whether to plan for the future or live like there's no tomorrow? If the superbomb goes off, then the superbomb will have certainly gone off. Anyway, I agree that people should be guarded more safely than money. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:41, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sort of like the Jessica Ghawi story. Poor folks. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:19, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Air Canada had apparently been "proactively" avoiding the area for a while. Seems to suggest it's the sort of decision an airline makes, rather than a regulator. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:05, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ukraine joined Eurocontrol in 2004. However, Eurocontrol only directly controls air traffic in the MUAC area (basically the upper airspace of Benelux and a part of Germany). Deciding on air space design and opening and closing of air spaces is mostly left to the member states. And of course the airlines decide which route they want to fly within the areas they are allowed to. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:12, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Even the FAA only told their airlines to avoid Crimea and the surrounding sea [5] so it doesn't seem that unique to European agencies.
It seems everyone is going to avoid the area now. Some may have been avoiding it before, although it's worth remembering it depends on the route. From comments on the news and elsewhere, I suspect it's a route more commonly used when travelling from/to parts of Europe to/from Asia, particular SEA (and perhaps also Australia/NZ). It may be easier for airlines travelling from/to Canada or the US to/from most destinations to avoid it without either noticeably increasing fuel usage and travel time or travelling over equally risky areas.
Perhaps everyone overestimate how much control Russia has over the breakaway region militants (at least those showing up with sophisticated weaponary), as Russia themselves have been saying all the time, and so believed it was safer than it was.
Nil Einne (talk) 23:45, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Airliners routinely fly over Iraq and Afghanistan, I believe. Or did until recently, in the case of Iraq - not sure about now. Instructions to pilots dictated that the aircraft remain above 22,500 feet at all times. Note that Man-portable air-defense systems, even recent models, cannot hit an airliner at full cruising height. (Those incidents where airliners were targeted by MANPADs generally involved takeoff and landing). Only fixed, semi-mobile, or vehicle-mounted systems could do it. Most insurgents don't have access to such systems (they're quite hard to hide). Obviously, the rebels in eastern Ukraine are an exception, as the airliner was apparently at full altitude. It's suspected a Buk missile system was used. 118.138.218.142 (talk) 10:26, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The evidence seems to point toward it having been a Russian made missile launched from the rebel controlled area of the Ukraine. This certainly suggests it was Ukrainian rebels who launched it, presuming the target to be a Ukrainian military plane. They may have obtained it either covertly from the Russians, or perhaps they captured it from Ukrainian military depot.

Note that 2 Ukrainian cargo planes and one Ukrainian fighter were shot down by the Ukrainian rebels in the last few weeks, although I'm unsure of their altitude. So it's pretty clear that the rebels have anti-aircraft weapons, and if those planes were at the same altitude, it's clear that they had AA weapons capable of shooting down civilian jets. If so, then allowing civilian jets to fly over that area seems incredibly stupid.

Also, are civilian jets flying over other war zones now ? Syria ? The Gaza Strip ? Iraq ? StuRat (talk) 17:59, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

According to Pierre Jeanniot, a former Air Canada CEO, they did fly over Afghanistan at those heights, and do for Iraq, Syria, Iran and Egypt. Without the precedent of a disaster, he thinks there was little reason for concern. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:01, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds like the classic tombstone mentality. StuRat (talk) 19:19, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
For a classic, that sure has been unsourced for a while. Should I delete it before or after someone is misled? InedibleHulk (talk) 20:48, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely not. Find a source for it, instead. Here's one from the New York Times: [6]. StuRat (talk) 20:57, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'll just leave it be and pass the buck on to you if any catastrophic confusion occurs. Your "advance-knowledge" seems more advanced than mine. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:08, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
What does a 9-11 conspiracy site have to do with anything ? StuRat (talk) 21:32, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It's actually Wikipedia. Figured it tied into the tombstone mentality, the general expert-in-hindsight vibe the news gets in times like these and my telling you about a potential Wikiproblem that you and I are willfully ignoring. Nothing to do with 9/11, in particular. I'll just shut up. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:06, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
CNN showed the missile that struck the plane broken it two. It was at least 25 feet, perhaps longer. Not a shoulder mount. It must have come from a specialized truck. What is a probability that a person who pulled the trigger did not know what he was doing? Such hardware are operated by a crew of ten. Put yourself in the shoes of the commander, perhaps a lieutenant junior grade. Before you fire you take binoculars and look at the aircraft. Aren't civilian aircraft distinguishable? Again if you are a commander of such a machine, would you do it alone? No, you will wait for an order from a superior officer. What is the motivation for the Ukrainian military to do it? Zero. Have they shot down any aircraft yet? No. The Russians have shot down Ukrainian planes in this area. --AboutFace 22 (talk) 20:41, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You can't distinguish planes at 33,000 feet from the ground with binoculars. I believe those were pro-Russian rebels who shot down the other planes recently, although there may be actual Russian military interspersed with them. It will certainly not help either the rebels nor the Russians out to have this on their record. Indeed, I suspect that much stricter sanctions will follow, unless Russia stops providing such high tech weapons to idiots. This fact does bring up the possibility that the Ukrainians did it, to blame it on the rebels, but that would be a very difficult thing to bring off, even if you assume they were immoral enough to do so. They would have to somehow get into the rebel controlled area with the missile launcher, shoot the missile, and get out, without being detected. Also, the serial numbers on the missile may be recovered, from which it could be tracked, and satellite surveillance of the area would likely spot any movements into or out of the area.
If recent news reports are correct, the missile launcher is a "point and click" system, where the radar finds a target, just displayed as a blip, and the operator then decides whether to launch or not. The missile launcher itself does not distinguish between targets, they would have to use other system for that. The rebels may not have access to those other systems. StuRat (talk) 20:55, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
A quick review of various reports and commentaries on cnn.com bear out the essence of what you're saying. The (unconfirmed) account of voice traffic indicates the rebels mistook it for a transport plane, and they (along with many others) are asking the same question as the OP here: What on god's green earth were they doing flying over a war zone? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:23, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
And suddenly the chat room becomes Sturat's own "I believe... " blog. There's a lot of crap here. Worth just reading the mainstream news sources, and avoiding these chat/conspiracy boards. All they do is perpetuate limited understanding. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:04, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Lawsuits will be filed in a short order. A bunch of lawyers already count their fees. Russia will be defending those lawsuits in European courts for the next decade or two. Some properties will be impounded. A lot of headache for Mr. Putin and company. --AboutFace 22 (talk) 23:51, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Seems to also be spurring Poland on to increase continue the sanction headache. Not that Poland needed any help in anti-Russian sentiment. But the rest of Europe may need a little help jumping to conclusions about their energy relationships. And who better for relationship advice than this odd couple? InedibleHulk (talk) 01:18, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Correction: Poland seems to have already been officially pissed (via Radoslaw Sikorski) a day before the plane exploded. I apologize if I implied they were easily manipulated. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:53, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This Štefan Füle guy has had an interesting few days. The day before he appeared in the story above, he was concerned with rumours and today he's helping annex former Soviet republics. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:41, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You must be confusing Füle with Putin, who is the only one who has been annexing (parts of) former Soviet republics recently. If you consider a bilateral agreement between independent countries an annexation, then the U.S. "annexed" Western Europe 65 years ago (or vice versa?); while the UN "annexed" almost the entire world. --Roentgenium111 (talk) 19:07, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Malaysia Airlines may not survive the double disaster. Kind of unfair for them but at the same time the second one is a product of poor judgment. Who is going to purchase tickets for their flights now? --AboutFace 22 (talk) 02:44, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You must be channeling Jason Biggs! ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 03:15, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Those who don't remember their Tweets are doomed to retweet them. Or maybe he's the killer. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:20, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
WSJ this morning has an article: "Compensation Could be Limited." The online version is more expanded. It says the Airline is contractually liable for $174,000 per death. Getting more from the governments may be problematic for a variety of reasons. The Airline's stock is down 11% this morning. --AboutFace 22 (talk) 18:48, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The legal precedent set by Iran Air Flight 655 suggests that Putin doesn't have to worry, the statements he made are similar to what was said by most countries in this earlier case (Iran is to blame because of the ongoing conflict, vs. Putin saying that the responsibility lies with Ukraine for starting the military offensive). I didn't hear Putin say anything remotely similar to this statement by the then vice president George H. W. Bush, "I will never apologize for the United States — I don't care what the facts are...". Count Iblis (talk) 20:40, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Singapore Airlines has apologized for simply reminding people their planes don't fly over warzones like 66 others. Apparently it's insensitive to literally defend passengers. I see no apology for almost causing a disaster at George Bush Intercontinental Airport earlier this month. Russia also hasn't apologized for doing the same in Barcelona, three days later. Corporations are stranger than governments, sometimes. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:42, 20 July 2014 (UTC) [reply]

Are these notable in England

edit

There is currently an AFD discussion about an Englishman named Nicholas Padfield, however, I'm finding it difficult to vote on him because all of his supposed accomplishments are that are unfamiliar to me as an American. I'm hoping someone can shed some light on whether or not these things are a big deal in England. He's listed in Who's Who (UK), is that something special? He played hockey at Oxford and for England. There are so many athletes in America, it's hard to know how big a deal that is. The article also says: He was called to the bar by the Inner Temple in 1972. He was appointed Queen's Counsel in 1991 and was elected a bencher of the Inner Temple in 1995. He was appointed a recorder in 1995 and a deputy judge in 2008. Are these big achievements? Bali88 (talk) 19:57, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If he played for England, I'd say that's instant notability right there provided sources can be found to verify it. There is no higher level in any sport than representing your country at international level. Mogism (talk) 20:03, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed.
Being called to the bar just makes one a barrister (a lawyer permitted to address certain slightly higher categories of court, balanced out by not being permitted to do some other things that lawyers in the British system do), and there are many of them, most of whom are not notable (and some of whom claim to be very poorly paid). A Recorder (judge) is a local judge (more important than a magistrate because it requires detailed knowledge of the law.) Not sure about deputy judge but I doubt it would confer notability. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 20:32, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, so the barrister thing is out as a form of notability. As for representing your country at international level, does that typically count as notability for British BLP's? Because I'm not sure it would be a notable feat for American athletes. There are 530 athletes who represented the US at the 2012 summer Olympics alone. More than 10K from all countries in 2012 total. Add that to all the athletes in the winter olympics and all the various international sporting events around the world and that's a lot of people! That's what's kind of giving me pause. I don't really know how big a deal hockey is and if being on the national team makes you a celebrity over there. Is that typically accepted for British athletes? Also, I kinda feel like if that is the thing that is making him notable, the article should be focused on that instead of it being sort of a side note. Say what year he played, what notable things he did on the team, etc.

Also, does anyone know anything about the who's who list? Is that something that is notable? Bali88 (talk) 21:09, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • A Queen's Counsel is a senior barrister, and a bencher is a senior member of an Inn of Court, taken together I think that they would argue towards notability, as would representing his country at the top level in any sport. (Hockey, by the way, means the one played on grass or artificial pitches, not the sort played on ice. Britain is generally seen as being in the upper ranks internationally). Who's Who would also argue towards notability. DuncanHill (talk) 21:28, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Not sure about Who's Who, but WRT the athletics stuff, see Wikipedia:Notability (sports). To wit " The guidelines on this page are intended to reflect the fact that sports figures are likely to meet Wikipedia's basic standards of inclusion if they have, for example, participated in a major international amateur or professional competition at the highest level (such as the Olympics)." You are free to interpret that, and apply it to this situation, as you see best. However, if you are seriously interested in saving the article, your best shot is to find source text about his life. What Wikipedia needs to write articles is reliable source text, and while the other, supplementary notability guidelines are nice, they are usually debatable as to whether the presumption of notability the supplementary guidelines provide really is there. However, actual, real, reliable, in-depth source text is unassailable. The more of that you find, the more rock solid your case comes in keeping the article around. If no in-depth source text exists anywhere in the world, it becomes harder to defend the existence of an article even if the subject of the article meets some arbitrary criteria, like holding some job or having appeared in some competition. --Jayron32 21:35, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Cool, thanks. I really don't have a dog in the fight in terms of keeping it, I just wasn't sure what to do with it!
Can you guys think of a reliable source for this? I don't think the "Who's Who" book is going to count since it's self-written. If I can I'd like to add it to the article. Bali88 (talk) 01:10, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting point. The content of a Who's Who entry is written by the subject, but the fact of inclusion is decided by the editors, so it seems to me that it should count towards notability. --ColinFine (talk) 15:35, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have added six reliable sources, so the page should now meet the general notability guideline of WP:N. Moonraker (talk) 04:10, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Archives/Humanities/2014_July_17&oldid=1073520286"