Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jack Speiden

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 no consensus for deletion, though I recommend taking the discussion to the article's talk page and considering the move suggestions made below. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 23:41, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Jack Speiden

Jack Speiden (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

No assertion of notability. Deleted under proposed deletion and recreated, so I'm sending it over here RedRollerskate 17:39, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete - Non-notable per nom, article is poorly sourced. --Eqdoktor 18:54, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Poor composition and weak sourcing are not grounds for deletion. Let's fix the problems. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Kevin Murray (talk • contribs).

If you feel that strongly about it, consider this a friendly invitation to join WikiProject Wikify. We can use your help to fix this article (and thousands of others). RedRollerskate 20:07, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

• Keep & provide sources I think that the Kennedy/Goldwater connection lends some ironic notability. Coupled with his other exploits this seems to creep into notability. There is one source given (poorly formatted) which is credible and non-trivial (per Wiki standards). I think that the topic is interesting and could be expanded. --Kevin Murray 19:40, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
  • According to the article, Kennedy and Goldwater were associated with the Jay Six Ranch, not to Speiden personally. They might make the ranch notable enough for an article but that doesn't necessarily make Jack Speiden notable (and, interestingly, whoever created the Speiden article has not gotten around to writing an article about the ranch). Leaning towards delete. Tim Pierce 06:19, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
• Comment I relisted this article on 12/30/06 to get a better consensus. RedRollerskate 07:09, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
• Move to Jay Six Ranch. Most of the notability of this person has to do with the ranch he operated. Move the article there and reformat it as an article about the ranch. --- RockMFR 07:14, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

• I would support this with a redirect from his name --Kevin Murray 19:52, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete or merge. NN. Google search found 16 hits ignoring Wikipedia & duplications. Anthony Appleyard 09:15, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

• The g-hit criteria will always be problematic for obscure but notable historic figues. We want WP to grow beyond the scope of a high school history text, but how can we if we just include articles about recognized people. Notability is not the same as general recognition. --Kevin Murray 19:52, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

• Keep - the article doesn't mention this (since the source material was written in 1953) but Speiden ran for Congress in 1956 and again in 1958 losing to Stewart Udall [1]. --Duke of Duchess Street 02:33, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

See also "John G. Speiden, a southern Arizona rancher, drew 15114 votes in a no-contest ... his rather colorless, older opponent, John G. Speiden, 79651 to 51140. ..."[2] and [3] which lists the candidate as "John G. (Jack) Speiden" so it's the same guy. --Duke of Duchess Street 02:39, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Is he still notable if he lost both times? (Not trying to start a fight, just curious.) RedRollerskate 04:10, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. A mildly colorful life is not the same thing as notability. WMMartin 16:13, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

• It's easy to confuse notability with prominence. Notable is not a very high standard, just worthy of "notice." I think that the guidelines purposely avoided words like famous, important and prominent and chose "notable" as a lower threshold. --Kevin Murray 00:09, 3 January 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.