Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Obadiah Newcomb Bush

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. Archtransit (talk) 16:51, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Obadiah Newcomb Bush

Obadiah Newcomb Bush (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

James Smith Bush (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Obadiah Bush is the great-great-grandfather of Bush 41 and great-great--great-grandfather of Bush 43, while James Smith Bush is the great-grandfather of Bush 43 and great-great-grandfather of Bush 43. Being related to a POTUS (or two) is not notable on it's own, so they need to be notable in some other way. Aside from his descendents, the article for Obadiah's only claim of possible is an unsupported claim that he was a "well-known abolitionist and VP of the American Anti-Slavery Society". James Bush's only other claim to fame is.. Well, nothing.

Both subjects seem to be included in Wikipedia because they are inherited to Presidents of the United States and notability is not inherited. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 22:50, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

POINT OF ORDER: You Can Not Delete Three Unrelated Articles in One Nomination!!! Americasroof (talk) 23:13, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

They are all related by the fact that the only thing notable about them is that they are related in some manner to Presidents of the United States. However, if you'd prefer, I can move William Jefferson Blythe, Jr. off to his own AFD. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 23:19, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Blythe definitely needs a separate entry. You shouldn't cut corners on afds. It will take you two minutes to properly nominate each article. Americasroof (talk) 23:33, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

IMHO it was created properly.;) But as requested, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/William Jefferson Blythe, Jr.. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 23:48, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for taking William Jefferson Blythe, Jr. out of this debate. PLEASE SPLIT AFD's for Obadiah Newcomb Bush and James Smith Bush. They have separate issues and need to be discussed separately. (There's already a split vote). Americasroof (talk) 01:27, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

• Delete Obadiah, Keep James. Disclaimer: I have edited both articles. I was hoping that more evidence of Obadiah's notability might emerge in time, but he was apparently just locally prominent. James, on the other hand, was a published religious author of some note, a founder of a notable society, and an early pastor of an important US cathedral. He also (for some reason, information on that trip is limited) seemed to be a goodwill ambassador of sorts. --Dhartung | Talk 00:46, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

• Are you talking about Wolf's Head? I'm not sure James can be considered "a founder" as the article only says he "supported" the founding along with 300 other Yale students. It seems his involvement consists of attending the first meeting. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 01:33, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

• I've been away from the topic for some time. There's hardly anything in the article about his books and they are probably his chief claim to fame. Fortunately Google Books is expanded considerably since the last time I did any research for this article. --Dhartung | Talk 05:46, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

• Delete Notability does not propagate backwards through time to make notable the otherwise non-notable ancestors of U.S. presidents. Possible redirect to the article about the U.S. president and provide appropriate brief mention there. Edison (talk) 05:21, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per Edison Rotovia (talk) 07:16, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
• Keep Notability and verifiability have been established. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 09:01, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
• KEEP James Smith Bush: WP:BIO says A person is presumed to be notable enough for a standalone article if he or she has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject. So the question becomes are there reliable third party sources? The Grace Cathedral site has a photograph of Bush and mentions that Mark Twain satirized the selection process for the rector when Bush was selected. Other books have been discussed in which Bush is talked about. Policy says it does not matter whether we think he is notable, policy says are there third party published that they think he is notable. The third party sources have been established. He was the first of the Bushies at Yale, established a Bushie precedent of belonging to secret societies and his name helps tell the story of Grace Cathedral. Americasroof (talk) 11:15, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
• Weak keep (for both) Notability doesn't transfer, but it sounds like this person indeed is discussed in multiple secondary sources. However, it would be nice if we could actually see them, to determine if they're merely trivial mentions. "He's related to Dubya, and he existed" isn't a sufficient mention TheBilly (talk) 11:21, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

• Comment All of the sources I have used are available with either a NYT or Google login, both of which are free. --Dhartung | Talk 21:43, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 16:21, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
• Close this as overly bundled I started looking at the James Smith Bush article, it claims he has written three books, then it should be checked what sort of status they got- and then it is a lot of other things to sort out if he still should fail. It would take ages to check all three articles if they have this sorts of heavy claims to notability. Not to be offensive, but bundling of this sort should be reserved to easily checked types of articles, and then used only with big caution. The lack of fingerspitzgefühl here from the noms side makes me somewhat dizzy. Greswik (talk) 22:22, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
• comment; given the apparent SNOW result on WJB, Jr, perhaps the other nominations should be withdrawn. DGG (talk) 00:14, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
• Keep I believe prominent politicians' families should have articles. Now as for their great-great-great grandfathers, I believe that is pushing it. But this article has sufficient information on the subject and I don't believe there's any benefit to WP to delete all of this information. --Tocino 18:38, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
• Keep James Smith Bush possibly significant writer in his own right, subject of an article in the NYT. DGG (talk) 12:07, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
• Weak Keep Obadiah Newcomb Bush. vice president of the Anti-Slavery Society and being covered in books about GW Bush is sufficient. There is obvious popular and academic interest. DGG (talk) 12:07, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete Obadiah Keep James Not independently notable per WP:BIO. James is notable per publications. --Strothra (talk) 13:26, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete and Keep Per Strothra OneHappyHusky (talk) 06:00, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
• Keep, marginally notable. Everyking (talk) 03:39, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

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.