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. Consensus indicates that the sources are not enough for him to meet WP:GNG, the Keith book is self-published. Secret ^account 15:36, 18 October 2014 (UTC) reply

Harold Terry (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)

(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG, WP:MILPEOPLE, and WP:ANYBIO. Most of the sources are not both independent and reliable. Chris Troutman ( talk) 15:38, 19 September 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 18:35, 19 September 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 18:36, 19 September 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 18:36, 19 September 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 18:36, 19 September 2014 (UTC) reply

• Local county sherriff with no strong evidence of encyclopedic notability, sourced predominantly to primary sources — and of the three sources here that are coming from suitably reliable media, one of them is just the obituary of his late wife (which cannot confer notability.) Delete. Bearcat ( talk) 21:00, 20 September 2014 (UTC) reply
• delete as per nom; fails GNG BlueSalix ( talk) 01:31, 21 September 2014 (UTC) reply
• Keep. The sheriff of this large parish, third largest in the state is notable. The oral history interview is by R. W. Norton Art Gallery, and independent of the former sheriff. The sheriff's department history on-line was written 24 years after this sheriff left office, and is largely independent of him. There is a book reference cited too. The wife's obit gives the information on his family life. The article is well-written, concise. And there is not much else I could find on the former sheriff on-line. He is a pre-Internet person. He is also an expert marksman, or was, and was the weapons advisor in two Hollywood films. He had an interesting WWII record, the only member of his platoon to survive the war. I can't see why anyone would object to this article. Billy Hathorn ( talk) 03:43, 21 September 2014 (UTC) reply

Wikipedia does not grant a presumption of notability to county/parish sheriffs, regardless of whether the jurisdiction in question is the largest, smallest, oldest, newest, richest, poorest, whateverest in the state. A sheriff only qualifies for an article on here if you can actually powersource them over WP:GNG, and that hasn't been done here. Bearcat ( talk) 18:21, 22 September 2014 (UTC) reply

I also want to add that official sources say that 12,209,238 US soldiers fought in WW II. Of those who returned home, I'm sure that many millions had an interesting war experience, and many were heroes. LaMona ( talk) 15:33, 25 September 2014 (UTC) reply

• Keep Per Billy Hathorn. Dcfc1988 ( talk) 22:42, 21 September 2014 (UTC) reply
• Delete There's lots of detail here, something I'm sure his friends and family will find interesting. However, there is nothing that makes him notable in an encyclopedic sense. This is merely the biography of a regular person, but entirely not encyclopedic in nature. User:Billy_Hathorn, who is voting keep, is also the only author on this article. He has added quite a bit to it in recent days, but that doesn't change the notability of the subject. LaMona ( talk) 15:15, 25 September 2014 (UTC) reply
• There are 531 American sheriffs with Wikipedia articles. This article has sources of: two books, one magazine article, five newspaper articles, an oral history from an art museum foundation, and an article by the historian Eric John Brock about the history of the Caddo Parish Sheriff's Department. The only one of these articles that would not be independent of Mr. Terry would be his wife's obituary, which lists his children's names. In addition to being sheriff, he was a marksman and had a unique World War II experience, having been the only survivor of his platoon. He was also the gun master on two 1990s films. By every reasonable standard, he meets Wikipedia notability. Billy Hathorn ( talk) 21:49, 26 September 2014 (UTC) reply
• Keep I agree with Billy Hathorn, he easily passes WP:GNG. Tiller54 ( talk) 22:39, 28 September 2014 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Black Kite (talk) 17:48, 29 September 2014 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar  ♔ 22:12, 6 October 2014 (UTC) reply

• Delete per nom. Even ignoring the issue as to which of the sources are reliable, the sources mostly mention Harold Terry in passing; he is not the main subject of the sources. The closest to major mention is a short article that's part of an oral history project -- and the context is that it's the story of a regular person, not someone notable. -- Larry ( talk) 00:17, 7 October 2014 (UTC) reply

• That is not what a passing mention is. What GNG actually says is that significant coverage "need not be the main topic of the source material." James500 ( talk) 08:09, 8 October 2014 (UTC) reply

It's true that he need not be the main subject -- but it's not enough to be mentioned just in passing. -- Larry/Traveling_Man ( talk) 16:11, 8 October 2014 (UTC) reply

He's mentioned in some detail on four pages of Bill Keith (2009), The Commissioner: A True Story of Deceit, Dishonor, and Death. The oral history about him is by a reputable source, the R. W. Norton Museum Foundation. Billy Hathorn ( talk) 00:54, 9 October 2014 (UTC) reply

• Keep per Billy Hathorn. James500 ( talk) 06:06, 12 October 2014 (UTC) reply
• Delete per nom and Bearcat. -- Why should I have a User Name? ( talk) 08:44, 12 October 2014 (UTC) reply
• Delete not notable per nom & Bearcat. If this level of "notability" were acceptable, nearly every elected or appointed official of any level would meet it. Many are veterans; others have no doubt had "interesting" careers, all documented by alumni magazines, local rags, and governmental websites. WP:TRIVIAL. Wikipedia:Trivial mentions Carlossuarez46 ( talk) 17:42, 14 October 2014 (UTC) reply

The "interesting career" is being the only survivor of his platoon. New info added on the D'Artois case from two more pages in the Bill Keith book. Also added Terry's role in the bomb squad that received national acclaim. Billy Hathorn ( talk) 02:07, 15 October 2014 (UTC) reply

@ User:Carlossuarez46: WP:TRIVIAL presently redirects to Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Trivia sections which expressly says that it "does not suggest the inclusion or exclusion of any information; it only gives style recommendations." I do not see how it could possibly be relevant to AfD. Perhaps you meant to refer to another page? James500 ( talk) 23:59, 15 October 2014 (UTC) reply

Indeed, Wikipedia:Trivial mentions. Carlossuarez46 ( talk) 00:29, 16 October 2014 (UTC) reply

I am afraid that I do not agree with that essay. To say that GNG "clearly states" the proposition advanced in the essay is not true. All GNG actually says is that that particular single sentence is insignificant. It does not say what would happen if a single sentence said something exceptionally important about a topic that has no plausible target for merger. It does not say what would happen if you had a very large number of single sentence mentions. GNG is incredibly vague and subjective. James500 ( talk) 02:57, 16 October 2014 (UTC) reply

Clarification: The mention of Sheriff Terry in the Bill Keith book is over at least four pages, not a "trivial mention" only. By the way, this article has been revised considerably since it was originally challenged. Billy Hathorn ( talk) 12:45, 16 October 2014 (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.