Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Timothy Bush 2

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 below is that the coverage at Bush family is adequate. Eluchil404 03:30, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Timothy Bush

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

The article was nominated for deletion once before (link), but it closed as "no consensus", and I'd like to see whether the community can find some agreement this time around, now that some time has passed. The article, as it currently exists, is sourced only to genealogy websites of uncertain provenance, which fail WP:RS. I'm not able to locate any reliable sources with which to replace them (meaning that it fails WP:BIO), and I don't believe that any are available, with good reason: The subject of the article lived a wholly unremarkable life (worked as a blacksmith, got married, had kids, fought in the army, died), and he's only listed here at all because his great-great-great-great-great grandson happened to grow up into an important person. I reject the idea that we should have an article for the previous seven generations' worth of relatives for every biographical subject in Wikipedia, particularly when the information within them would be purely speculative. For these reasons, I think it should be deleted. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 22:41, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

• Keep hard to argue with nom. on the rules but given the prominence of the family and the interest in Bush-related and more generally presidential (and candidate) genealogy, a page for him is appropriate and useful. JJL 22:58, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete This person lacks references to show he was in any way notable other than as the ancestor of a president of the U.S. Notability does not percolate back to ancestors, and Wikipedia is not a genealogy website like Ancestry.com. Edison 02:56, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. I've worked on the article in the past, but it's clear he has no inherent historical notability. We already have Bush family, anyway. Not even a likely search term, so no redirect is necessary. --Dhartung | Talk 08:16, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. I fully accept all the arguments for deletion, as expressed above, however his descendants are noteworthy and I find it informative that such a life could be the root from which those values later espoused by those descendants sprang. It's also a wonderful corrective to the Whiggish great man theories of history. Apart from that, as a Briton, I find all the lesser explored avenues of early US history totally fascinating albeit that they may appear trivial to others who know the progress of that history far better than I. In addition, I have often heard it said that the Bush family were of Germanic stock and were, in reality, Busch. This article would seem to give the lie to such a claim Jatrius 14:34, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, no notability on his own. Mention in one of his relatives' page if you wish. Stifle (talk) 21:01, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
• Merge into Bush family. JJL says the information in the article may be useful. That may be true, so keep the information; just don't keep the article. By himself he's not notable. JFlav 22:54, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. Bush family already contains any potentially notable and verifiable information about Timothy Bush. JFlav 18:10, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Notable person, wiki should have an article on him. THE KING 15:45, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Since I don't understand, can you please explain why you consider him to be notable? -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 16:18, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
    • From the article, 'Through his son Timothy Bush, Jr., who was also a blacksmith, descended two American Presidents: George H. W. Bush and George W. Bush.' As JFlav says, a merge into the Bush family article would be acceptable if we decide that a full article is unnecessary. THE KING 23:24, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
    • Really, Bush family already mentions Timothy Bush, and any possibly interesting information about him. I change my recommendation. JFlav 18:10, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - there is nothing to distinguish this individual other than the tenuous relationship to Bush. Furthermore, verifiability is policy, and there is no reliable sources to provide any verification. -- Whpq 16:24, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as non notable. In the same way as notability cannot be inherited, it cannot work back up the chain either. Nuttah68 18:50, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete because if George Bush (current president, and ex president) didn't exist, no one would want to know about him anyway. No actual contribution to knowledge in the article. kippi3000 10:00, 26 October 2007 (GMT)

• Delete Not notable of his own accord. DMcMPO11AAUK/Talk/Contribs 07:52, 27 October 2007 (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.