Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Obadiah Newcomb Bush (2nd nomination)

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. Notability is not inherited, and this article does not demonstrate notability through widespread or significant sourcing. No prejudice against establishment of a redirect to Bush family, as favored by some responders, but consensus is clearly against this article being retained. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 19:33, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Obadiah Newcomb Bush

Obadiah Newcomb Bush (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View log)

Non-notable ancestor of the Bush family. Notability is not inherited. --Michael White^T·C 20:04, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

• Delete The first AFD seemed to be in favor of deleting Obadiah but not James. This person is non notable. Undeath (talk) 20:08, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete Though it's an interesting story, he's one of 8 great-great-grandfathers to George H.W. Bush, and one of 32 great-great-great-grandparents of the current president. I believe that the consensus at the 1850 Whig-a-pedia Convention would have been that Obadiah was not notable even among forty-niners. Mandsford (talk) 20:13, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete WHile he has notable decendents, I see nothing here to point to his independant notability. Accidence of productive sexual intercourse is not by itself a notable event. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 20:16, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete or Redirect to Bush family. Not notable per WP:BIO. Notability is not inherited or vice versa. --Veritas (talk) 20:23, 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) 22:44, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

  • Comment This is to Americasroof. You are wrong. It did not survive the nomination. If it were Obadiah alone, it would have been deleted. The nomination in January had two artices up for deletion and the second of the two was the one that got the keep votes. This articl should be deleted as the other editors above have proven. Undeath (talk) 23:05, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
    • Response: I tried to get the 1st nominator to unbundle the names exactly to prevent a problem like this. I see that the user who closed the debate did not properly report it on the affected pages and has subsequently been banned. So, this particular nomination is legitimate. Americasroof (talk) 23:19, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
• Redirect to Bush family, just like it was when it was brought up for deletion in 2004 (see talk page). Clarityfiend (talk) 01:22, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
• Keep meets every requirement for notability and verifiability. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 01:28, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment Oh, and what requirements does it meet? Tell me how it meets the requirements. Undeath (talk) 04:15, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
• Redirect to Bush family. The only thing notable about him is that he served as the vice president of the Anti-Slavery Society. We don't need a whole other article to note that. BlueAg09 (Talk) 01:47, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

• Comment I don't think he was the president of the national society, only the Rochester, New York society. At least, the sources I have seen suggest this interpretation. --Dhartung | Talk 06:27, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

• Delete. He was a locally prominent merchant but that's about it, if you discount his descendants. We are not a genealogical directory. --Dhartung | Talk 06:27, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable. If someone wanted to redirect it to Bush family, I wouldn't be heartbroken, I guess, but there's not enough meat here for a standalone article. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 16:58, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
• Redirect per the comments made in the Cooper Manning AfD a while back. y'am'can (wtf?) 14:10, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
• Keep - This is a toughie. However WP:BIO says A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject. I see 3,470 google links. I know there's the debate over whether Google links are adequate but it does show there is interest and articles about him. Cited as a source on an article Rochester Democrat and Chronicle.com, President's family has deep roots here, by Lara Becker Liu, February 21, 2005. Thus, he meets the standard there are significant third party articles about him. The article clearly establishes the Bush trait of taking risks sometimes at the expense of his own family. Wikipedia is not a geneology but common sense should dictate a different standard for tracing the history of heads of state. Americasroof (talk) 14:55, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

• Comment. But the coverage also has to be non-trivial. GHits is not a good measure; for a search for "Obadiah Newcomb Bush" (2890 results), I looked through the first six pages of results and failed to find any sites that were not either genealogy sites or Wikipedia mirrors. A search for "Obadiah Bush" shows no more than passing reference. --Michael White^T·C 16:14, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

• Comment Americasroof, I've worked on Prescott Bush, Samuel Prescott Bush, and even James Smith Bush. They are all notable. I've looked for indicators of better notability for Obadiah and I haven't found them yet. I no longer see any value to keeping this other than genealogical. There are plenty of Bushes who have made their mark on the world, and plenty who haven't (in fact, I know a descendant of S.P. personally; there's quite a range of notability even within one set of siblings). --Dhartung | Talk 06:59, 29 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.