Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Frederick K. Humphreys

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The result was : Nomination withdrawn by nominator as explained below. Non-admin closure --JForget 22:44, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Frederick K. Humphreys

Frederick K. Humphreys (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Per WP:BIO, I cannot find any reliable secondary sources that demonstrate this person's notability, beyond the NYTimes obit from 1900. Skinwalker 18:20, 3 July 2007 (UTC) I withdraw this nomination, based on the search results and obit clarification. Skinwalker 21:48, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

• Keep The obituary from The New York Times is not only a source, but the fact that this individual was selected by The Times for inclusion as an obituary is a pretty strong demonstration of notability. Additional sources should be added to expand the article. Alansohn 18:39, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Rhetorical question: Does everyone who had a NYT obituary in 1900 merit an article? More seriously, your point about additional sources is a good one. I cannot find any, despite using google (web, scholar, and book), isiknowledge, and lexis nexis. Perhaps this is too old of a subject to be included in these searches, but I doubt it. Cheers, Skinwalker 19:28, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

• I can't quite say that an obituary in that period confers notability by definition, but it does lend a strong presumption. Humphrey's obituary runs for several paragraphs, was the lead obituary of teh day, and one of only two obituaries that I can see in that day's paper. In addition to the obit, Humphreys was covered extensively in The Times, including an 1895 article about him and many other mentions in articles about patent medicine moguls. We have to be careful to avoid the presumption that a lack of Google hits or Lexis/Nexis mentions is evidence of non-notability for individuals who were at the height of their career in the late 19th century. Alansohn 19:48, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I realize that modern search engines aren't the best way to determine notability for 19th century individuals. If someone can add additional secondary sources, I will withdraw this AFD. Cheers, Skinwalker 19:51, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

• I just did a Google News Archive search and found 411 hits concerning the company, or him, or his grandson, who later ran the company. What search terms did you use that you couldn't find any? [1]

  I used "Frederick K. Humphery". Skinwalker 21:48, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

• Keep I searched for the company that he ran "Humphrey's Homeopathic" and have found many items for sale as antiques. Based on the number found it appears that his company was successful and well known. This combined with the NYT obit is enough for me. CuriousGiselle 19:45, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. The New York Times actually published fewer obituaries on average per issue in 1900 than they do in 2007. The Times publishes about five to six per day now, but back then one or two a day was the norm, and those individuals tended to be very notable. I think we can take the Times's word for it, and we can also assume that newspapers whose archives from the 19th century are not as easily searchable may have also discussed him in his time. --Charlene 20:30, 3 July 2007 (UTC)