Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jack Truman

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 Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:01, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Jack Truman

Jack Truman (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Grandnephew of President Truman and failed Congressional candidate. Notability is not inherited, there are no real sources, and he hasn't done anything that satisfies WP:BIO. Clarityfiend (talk) 15:22, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

• Delete - As above, notability is not inherited. Political candidates are not automatically notable (WP:BIO). While his film-making might endow notability none of the films I've found him credited with would satisfy WP:MOVIES. BlinkingBlimey (talk) 15:41, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete - per WP:BIO. Macy's123 ^{(review me)} 16:38, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
• Keep I agree, notability is not inherited, but looking at his political career and movies it seems that he is indeed notable. If he was only one of those three then he would not be notable, but the combination of the three makes him notable. As WP:BIO for Politicians states:

Just being an elected local official, or an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability, although such a person may be notable for other reasons besides their political careers alone.

He is notable for more than just his political career. Editorofthewiki (talk) 19:37, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Comment I think this does come down to interpretation. I did consider his various endeavours outside of politics and wondered if they endowed notability. They would not in their own right, and I think it's a dangerous to set a precendent that mediocrity in a variety of fields endows notability. BlinkingBlimey (talk) 19:45, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

The precedent is already here. See Natasha Collins and both of its deletion dicussions. Editorofthewiki (talk) 22:39, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

One AFD was delete/redirect, the other was no consensus. That's hardly a ringing endorsement of any kind of precedent. --Dhartung | Talk 06:35, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Consistency is what we need. If we closed that one as a no censensus default to keep, then we should close this one as a no concensus default to keep, even without the votecount. Editorofthewiki (talk) 23:56, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

• Delete. Failed minor political candidate, movie extra, teacher. Where's the notability in that? WWGB (talk) 23:24, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

There's no notability in any of that alone but combined make the subject notable. Editorofthewiki (talk) 23:48, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

• Comment - It's the deletion of articles like this that hurt the reputation of Wikipedia. Notability is a standard applicable for encyclopedias that have limited space on the printed page. All this does is discourage people from contributing. Do what thou wilt. Chadlupkes (talk) 05:15, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I would have thought that it's the preponderance of dross with little or no notability that hurts the reputation of Wikipedia. Then again, I didn't start this article. WWGB (talk) 05:32, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

• Delete, fails WP:BIO in all three career domains. Just having a varied career is not notability. --Dhartung | Talk 09:24, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually, it does pass WP:BIO as per my reasoning above. Editorofthewiki (talk) 21:15, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

FYI: Responding to everyone with the same comment (or a "see my comment above") is not helping you look reasonable and engaged. --Dhartung | Talk 06:35, 29 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.