Talk:Donald Turnupseed

message: This article really serves no purpose.  The subject's only notability is mentioned in sufficient detail on the James Dean page. Hammersbach (talk) 20:09, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Unless someone objects in the next day or two I am going to redirect this article to the one on James Dean. Hammersbach (talk) 11:57, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I've reverted the redirect.  Mr. Turnupseed gained a peculiar renown for his role (by all accounts an innocent one) in the Dean tragedy.  Just today, I searched for him directly in response to a trivia question.  Redirecting this article does not allow one to disclose conveniently the facts of his post-accident life (These facts -- his reaction to the accident, his line of work in later life, and his date of death -- are minimal, but interesting.)  As Mr. Turnupseed has been dead fourteen years, BLP concerns do not apply.  The length of his article is appropriate given his limited fame; the alternative of a redirect, by causing the omission of several facts from the record, is a disservice to interested readers, of whom I should think there are millions (given Dean's fame, and the mystique surrounding his death.)  Best wishes, Xoloz (talk) 06:41, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: So the significant reason for keeping this article is that he's the answer to trivia questions? Hammersbach (talk) 16:33, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: "Interesting" is not a proper rationale for keeping an article. This is a textbook case of a person who is notable only for a single event. A redirect or outright deletion are the correct actions. DarkAudit (talk) 20:25, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The proper rationale for keeping the article is that the gentleman has been the subject of myriad secondary sources over the years.  These usually only mention the barest facts about him; but, their frequency and and their importance in the culture are undeniable.  Read any book on James Dean, and you'll get two paragraphs on Mr. Turnupseed.  And yes, the frequency of his appearance in tests of general knowledge is one measure of his penetration into popular culture.  Having said that, I wouldn't object to a merger if it could be accomplished without the loss of any significant information from this article.  The merger I reverted failed to achieve this.  Best wishes, Xoloz (talk) 21:08, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Going on to establish an electrical contracting business is not significant information. There is nothing more beyond that in this article that isn't already in the James Dean article. A paragraph in a book about James Dean is irrelevant per WP:BIO. He is not the subject of the book, which is the standard expected. Your assertion that the sources only mention the barest information about him is an admission that the coverage is trivial. If your "myriad secondary sources" are all trivial coverage, then there is no real coverage at all. The standard is the person in question is the subject of the coverage him or herself. That does not appear to be the case here. DarkAudit (talk) 00:26, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, I think you are missing the point -- reliable sources have already been given for the article; the myriad secondary source mentions and the cultural significance only bolster the case for Mr. Turnupseed's inclusion, for which the sources given are prima facie sufficient.  You should not rely on an overly literal reading of WP:BIO; however, even the strictest reading of WP:BIO1E allows "If the event is highly significant, and the individual's role within it is a large one, a separate article is generally appropriate."  Such is the case here.  Mr. Turnupseed's involvement was a sine qua non for a major cultural event in 20th Century America.  I find the mention of Howard Brennan within WP:BIO1E quite interesting as an analogy.  Although Dean's death was historically less significant than the Kennedy assassination, Dean also achieved iconic status in death.  Brennan's involvement in Kennedy's death is much more peripheral than Turnupseed's involvement in Dean's.  If Brennan (marginally connected with a very famous death) is sufficiently notable, then Turnupseed (essentially connected with a less famous, but still iconic death) should be also.  Note that I did not choose Brennan as an analogy haphazardly; he is an example given on the guideline page.  If you truly continue to believe that an article here is inappropriate, I suggest either AfD (which often decides questions of merging tangentially) or WP:PM, to elicit broader opinion on the question.  Best wishes, Xoloz (talk) 07:01, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Mr. Brennan was a material witness to the most significant event of the generation, and wrote a book about it. Mr. Turnupseed never spoke of this incident again. The only information in this article that is not already in the James Dean article is birth and death dates, and him going on to run his father's contracting business. The overwhelming majority of web sites and news articles referring to Mr. Turnupseed only do so in passing as part of articles about James Dean. Dean is iconic. Donald Turnupseed is not. DarkAudit (talk) 13:50, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I didn't say Turnupseed was iconic; I said that he bares a similar relationship to Dean as Brennan did to Kennedy.  Brennan isn't iconic, either.  In fact, Turnupseed is more important to Dean's story than Brennan is to Kennedy's.  With an article that is reliably sourced, and with the argument based on the guideline for maintaining this article, I don't see a case for merging.  Nor is it likely our opinions will change here.  If you wish to further press the issue, I again urge you to post the article to WP:Proposed Mergers or AfD, in order to obtain a consensus in one direction or the other. I would post it myself; but, I do not support either a merger or a deletion, so I cannot. Best wishes, Xoloz (talk) 16:53, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: After reviewing the article on Howard Brennan I am of the opinion that its selection as an example for WP:BIO1E is flawed. (For its selection in WP:BIO1E, not by Xoloz for this discussion)  Mr. Turnupseed’s brush with history can be covered more than adequately in the article on James Dean.  Let’s go ahead and put it up for either deletion or merge, I would support either one.  Hammersbach (talk) 17:24, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Hammersbach, you may start either of these processes yourself at any time.  I always endorse efforts to find a wider consensus on any issue. Best wishes, Xoloz (talk) 20:15, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Done and done.  Prost! Hammersbach (talk) 01:41, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Delete

message: I agree with the merger. As per above, there's little here that isn't already in James Dean. Since Mr. Turnupseed never spoke publicly of the incident again, what's left to save? The electrical contracting business and his death can be merged as a postscript to the accident. DarkAudit (talk) 05:40, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Unless someone objects I will be merging this article with James Dean in the next day or two.  Prost! Hammersbach (talk) 13:05, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merger 

message: I think the information on the page is still worth keeping so I personally think that the page should be established again. Dontforgetthisone (talk) 18:43, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Revert Re-Direct