Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John G. McCaskey

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. Daniel.Bryant ^{[ T · C ]} 06:49, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] John G. McCaskey

John G. McCaskey (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Fails WP:BIO criteria, also WP:NOT a directory of oil company executives. Few unique ghits. Linkless apparently because he's not considered that important in context of the people or things he was involved with, such as E. W. Marland, and Marland Oil Company. Contested prod. Tubezone 13:36, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. The list of references strongly suggests that he is the subject of multiple independent non-trivial publications, and hence passes WP:BIO. The fact that he has been dead for many years doesn't detract from his notability. --TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 16:49, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
• Very strong Keep-as per TruthbringerToronto. Nileena joseph ^{(Talk|Contribs)} 17:07, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep. ghits? Are you serious? Google wasn't indexing public documents between 1874 and 1924. Linkless? A two day old article being linkless? Perish the thought! Unfocused 17:16, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment There are plenty of people and things, even obscure ones, from that era that generate reams of Google hits. This article is linkless because the editors who wrote the articles on Marland, Marland Oil, sauerkraut, and even Ponca City, Oklahoma apparently didn't think he was important enough to mention (if there were mentions, I'd have fixed the redlinks) - except perhaps a note under Ponca City, I can't see how you'd find an excuse to shoehorn Mr. McCaskey into the other articles without getting into a lot deeper detail than a Wikipedia article normally does. The references cited are, other than the Marland biography, weak IMHO, lots of people get local paper mentions and directory mentions. BTW, speaking of Ponca City, someone should write an article on the 101 Ranch Tubezone 19:49, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
    • Based on my research thus far, I expect the primary difference between this man and his contemporaries is that this gentleman died early, before he was pressured by estate tax laws to establish charities and foundations in his name to secure a legacy. Unfocused 20:31, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
• Weak keep pending cleanup. I'm not sure that the references listed suggest that he was the subject of the publications; in several of them he almost certainly was only mentioned and not featured as the primary subject; which would not satisfy the criterion mentioned by truthbringer. None of the references have McCaskey's name in the title or allude to the reference being primarily about him, so notability on the basis of that criterion is up in the air in my mind. Regardless, this is a substantive article that has at least made significant inroads to establishing notability of its subject within the article. It badly needs cleanup to look more encyclopedic and less like a personal essay. Hopefully, the original editor comes back around to address these concerns, because no one other editors are around that really seem to know anything about this guy. JGardner 18:11, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Keep. Like JGardner I'm unsure of his notability. The only mention I find in the NY Times is a tangential one in a report of a Senate Hearing (NYT: 4/11/1924 p1 [after his death]) -- Bpmullins | Talk 19:20, 15 November 2006 (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.