Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/James Smith Bush

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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The result was Withdrawn by nom.--Veritas (talk) 15:08, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] James Smith Bush

James Smith Bush (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View log)

An ancestor of the Bush family but otherwise a non-notable attorney and priest. Notability is not inherited. --Michael WhiteT·C 20:01, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

  • Keep Besides being an attorney and a priest, he was also the author of The Evidence of Faith (Houghton Mifflin 1885) and other books about religion. During the late 19th century, he appears to have attained notability in the news media of the day without having famous descendants. Like U.S. Senator Prescott Bush, he had accomplishments other than his progeny. Mandsford (talk) 20:25, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
This survived a afd discussion on January 10, 2008 at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Obadiah Newcomb Bush. This should not be discussed a little more than a month later. Americasroof (talk) 21:42, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
  • The nominator may or may not have been aware of the prior discussion. In any event, when an article is renominated, Wikipedia convention calls for adding a link to the prior discussion(s). Mandsford (talk) 22:02, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep: Sources in the article related to what he did in his life, independent of his paternity, establish notability. A nicely tidy bit of 19th century biography, actually, and I am more than a bit puzzled as to why this was brought to AfD. —Quasirandom (talk) 00:24, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Solely due to the number of publications (clearly not their quality) which per WP:BIO makes him notable as a writer. Simply being an attorney or clergyman doesn't make him notable, however. --Veritas (talk) 02:03, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep. I feel I have provided sufficient sources for independent notability, some of them dated well before any of his descendants entered politics. He was clearly author of at least one notable book that was reviewed by multiple major publications, passing WP:BK. See also George Bush (biblical scholar). Disclosure: I have edited the article extensively. --Dhartung | Talk —Preceding comment was added at 06:32, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Nomination withdrawn. Apologies, I did not realize there was a recent discussion. Seems he is sufficiently independently notable. --Michael WhiteT·C 14:00, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
Thank you so much! The earlier nomination and closing of it was a series of errors -- from the first nominator who bundled it (including bundling with other presidents relatives) -- to the admin who closed the discussion on the first day on the job negelecting to put the notice on the articles and then in turn getting banned from wikipedia altogether. It was certainly an easy mistake to make. It seems to be rare when folks change their minds in these discussions as it takes a lot of courage to do that. Many thanks again! Americasroof (talk) 14:40, 25 February 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.