Talk:Elmer Pendell

This article was nominated for deletion on 14 August 2020. The result of the discussion was keep.

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
	This article is supported by the science and academia work group.

Sociology Low‑importance

	Society portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sociology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of sociology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SociologyWikipedia:WikiProject SociologyTemplate:WikiProject Sociologysociology articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Contested deletion[edit]

This article should not be speedily deleted for lack of asserted importance because... (your reason here) --404A4BC76978E (talk) 01:48, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Elmer Pendell was a good writer, with an interesting thesis. Over time people will round out the page. I just thought there should be a page for him. In at least one other article, he is mentioned. Incidentally you mustn't think that I agree with his thesis. It is just interesting enough to be traceable. So don't 'speedily delete' the page simply because you dislike his notions. Errors, if they be errors, are worth tracking in the history of thought.

No citations etc.[edit]

I see now that someone has complained that the article lacks citations. I think the real issue is that people disagree with the subject of the article. Unfortunately I cannot find a biography of Elmer Pendell, but this is actually all the more reason to include him in the encyclopedia: precisely because he is often quoted in eugenics resources. He crops up a great deal, whether in pro- or anti-eugenics arguments. Eventually I believe someone will find a biographical paragraph or two about him, to flesh out the article. So again, I maintain that when you search on Elmer Pendell, he crops up a great deal, but it's hard to find anything about him. So it is a good idea to have a wiki page, so that over time some insights can be collected in one place. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 404A4BC76978E (talk • contribs) 16:20, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There are still no verifiable citations. At the present time, there are two references:

Instauration, July 1982, p. 17.
After some work, I found it online at http://www.instaurationonline.com/pdf-files/Instauration-1982-07-July-pt2.pdf , but its editorial policy seems to be not to credit contributors or to fact-check.
http://www.zoominfo.com/people/Pendell_Elmer_586496613.aspx
Not fact-checked. The only reason they are not sued for libel is that anyone claiming to be the subject can correct the entry.

and WorldCat, verifying he's written books. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:28, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: The Tuscaloosa News had the same info as the zoominfo, so I replaced the zoominfo with The Tuscaloosa News obituary.

It's likely that the Instauration people knew Dr. Pendell, because they all know each other and keep up with each other. 404A4BC76978E (talk) 02:40, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The article is now fine[edit]

The article is not about a living person, so the warning about a BLP can be removed. There are numerous references to newspaper articles that mention biographical details and viewpoints held by Dr. Pendell. The article is generally useful because Dr. Pendell's work is cited very frequently in theses about eugenics, pro and con, and it would be a good idea to have an article in the Wiki so that there is a place to collect anything about him that crops up. So the warnings can be removed from the top of the article. They no longer apply. 404A4BC76978E (talk) 02:40, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My mistake. It's not fine, though, as there's no evidence of notability. I didn't think there was an assertion of notability, but I've been overruled. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 05:27, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, I must disagree. It is certainly a mark of 'notability' to be frequently quoted, referred to, cited, listed, mentioned, and read. He wrote a number of books, taught in a number of places, and people have strong opinions about him. So that's notable. 404A4BC76978E (talk) 06:19, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There are many, many references and uses of his work around the Internet. Clearly the main public encyclopedia should have a place where people can collect what is known about him. There are many articles in the Wiki about authors and writers, that say a little about what they thought and what events transpired in their lives. It is a perfect use of the Wiki. Any high school student, for example, who needs to write about eugenics, can see that this one dabbled in marriage licensing and abortion issues. Perhaps another one might have studied botany. Who knows. But "notability" is clearly evident in the case of a person who is frequently noted. 404A4BC76978E (talk) 06:33, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Take for a contrast another article currently said to lack notability: Emily Shepherd. That one is entirely vapid and devoid of any references or other indications of notability. There is no comparison. The Elmer Pendell article clearly establishes notability. 404A4BC76978E (talk) 06:35, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]