Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pierce Bush

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

  ATTENTION!

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on a forum, please note that this is not a majority vote, but rather a discussion to establish a consensus among Wikipedia editors on whether a page is suitable for this encyclopedia. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines to help us decide this, and deletion decisions are made on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

Nonetheless, you are welcome to participate and express your opinions. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments by suspected single-purpose accounts can be tagged using {{subst:spa|username}}
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. Pigman☿ 00:25, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Pierce Bush

Pierce Bush (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Delete Not independently notable per WP:BIO and WP:NN Strothra (talk) 00:36, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete: Per nom. His opinions have became mildly notable, only because of his name. - Rjd0060 (talk) 01:06, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Every relative of a U.S. president does not become inherently notable. Writing a letter to a newspaper falls amazingly short of satisfying WP:N. Appearing on the Today show does not in itself satisfy WP:N. Edison (talk) 02:40, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom.   jj137 (Talk) 02:53, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Independent and reliable sources have found this person and his opinions to be notable. 86.137.6.133 (talk) 07:52, 18 November 2007 (UTC)— 86.137.6.133 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Note: The above comment was added by an anonymous account with 2 edits in total. Interesting how a "new user" comes to Wikipedia and goes straight to the AfD page. - Rjd0060 (talk) 16:53, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
I believe it is Colonel Warden per [1]. --Strothra (talk) 17:28, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
Sure is! - Rjd0060 (talk) 17:40, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep: Various members of the Bush family have articles. This one in particular has many other pages linking to it.Alina123 (talk) 20:38, 19 November 2007 (UTC)— Alina123 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Please note that the fact that related stuff exists is not a valid criterion for inclusion. --Strothra (talk) 20:35, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete as WP:NEWS. NN member of the outgoing dynasty. Bearian'sBooties (talk) 14:51, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep I came to his page because I saw him in the new issue of Rolling Stone magazine today. I think that speaks for itself in terms of notability. 67.9.149.252 (talk) 22:30, 20 November 2007 (UTC)— 67.9.149.252 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Keep Today Show, Larry King Live (thence CNN.com [2]), Rolling Stone, Wonkette (notable blog, [3])...what more do people want for WP:N? Here's someone a person might need to look up in an encyclopedia. JJL (talk) 22:13, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
See WP:NOT#NEWS, specifically: "Someone or something that has been in the news for a brief period is not necessarily a suitable subject for an article in their own right. While Wikipedia strives to be comprehensive, the policies on biographies of living persons and neutral point of view should lead us to contextualize events appropriately, which may preclude a biography about someone who is not an encyclopedic subject, despite a brief appearance in the news.[5] Routine news coverage and matters lacking encyclopedic substance, such as announcements, sports, gossip, and tabloid journalism, are not sufficient basis for an article." --Strothra (talk) 23:38, 24 November 2007 (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.