Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Abraham Lincoln II


 * 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 redirect to Robert Todd Lincoln. Ad Orientem (talk) 01:12, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Abraham Lincoln II

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Taking to AFD since PROD was contested. Article subject only seems to be noted for Lincoln family connections instead of anything of his own merit. Per WP:BIO and WP:NOTGENEALOGY, that isn't by itself enough to warrant a separate page. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 20:59, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 23:34, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 23:34, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —ADavidB 11:20, 29 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete notablity is not inhereited.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:25, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep: The article has existed for 12 years without such expressed concern, is generally well-sourced, and has a B class. The subject is of sufficient interest to have drawn 600 views per day on average over the last year. Per WP's 5th pillar text, "Wikipedia has no firm rules". —ADavidB 03:34, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Page views and how long the article has existed are entirely moot arguments as they have nothing to do with a subject's merit. See the WP:ARTICLEAGE and WP:POPULARPAGE sections of WP:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions for more. As for "sufficient interest", there's also the WP:INTERESTING portion to consider. No amount of quality sourcing changes how this guy isn't really notable in his own right. Neither will sheer quality of content that it contains. Furthermore, the "no firm rules" bit is a cheap cop-out as that page is really talking about how policies and guidelines can change over time, not that we should disregard them whenever we please. It mostly seems like you're WP:Masking the lack of notability or at least trying to with such points. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 04:54, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
 * The article subject may be decided not sufficiently notable and removed, though I don't see any benefit in doing so. The sources are valid. The article has been present for over a decade, plenty of time for supposed lack of notability to have been discovered before now. Wikipedia is not running out of resources. Putting the information in other article(s) only makes it less accessible. —ADavidB 09:53, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
 * (Shakes head in disappointment) No surprise that you of all people wouldn't see such benefit in deletion when you created it and thus are more naturally inclined to defend its existence. Again, it doesn't matter how long the page has existed. Being present for over 10 years without any prior AFD isn't a valid excuse to keep it. I'm not questioning source quality, only saying that referencing in this case isn't enough to make this worth keeping. Regarding placement of information, see the WP:BHTT and WP:VALINFO portion of that page I previously linked on arguments to avoid. <b style="color:#009900">SNUGGUMS</b> (<b style="color:#009900">talk</b> / <b style="color:#009900">edits</b>) 13:19, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
 * This proposed deletion does not benefit WP. That remains my view, regardless of another's headshaking/disappointment. A deletion policy essay is not binding. More attention to WP:NPA is suggested. President Lincoln had several generations succeed him. While some were not individually notable, they do have information worth writing about. Inclusion of that information only in Lincoln's article, or in those about his successors that enough WP editors consider 'worth keeping', may result in their being considered too long. WP:SPLITTING such content to other articles is an accepted WP practice. While that wasn't the history in this article's existence, it is in effect the result. —ADavidB 16:38, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
 * If one were too briefly sum up his important details into father Robert's page as Lockley proposes (birth, death, and illness), then that shouldn't have to take up more than a paragraph and thus not make it too long. The benefit of deletion or even merging/redirecting is that we reduce the number of unwarranted pages on Wikipedia (there are already more than I can count but those have nothing to do with whether this guy should have his own page). <b style="color:#009900">SNUGGUMS</b> (<b style="color:#009900">talk</b> / <b style="color:#009900">edits</b>) 04:24, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
 * It's evident we're far apart on the inclusionism/exclusionism spectrum of viewpoints. WP is not a book; one is not required to carry its paper weight, or turn pages through every article. Regarding summarization, per WP:NNC: "Notability guidelines do not apply to content within an article." —ADavidB 09:58, 29 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep. The subject is a historical figure with plenty of sources, and the arguments for deletion misunderstand policy.  For example, notability is not inherited contains an important counter-example: You can’t delete the First Lady’s article because she’s just the president’s wife.  Here, it’s the president’s grandson.  And article age and popularity are not, as claimed above, irrelevant — the policy is that they are not sufficient, standing alone.  They don’t stand alone here.  And as a good rule of thumb if we’re deleting pages about historical figures that people search for and that we’ve had for a long time, we’re in danger of embarrassing the project.  Rule one is DBAD; to me, rule two is that we don’t do anything that we’d be embarrassed to have on the front page of the New York Times.  Deleting Abraham Lincoln’s grandson because he’s “just” Abraham Lincoln’s grandson falls into that category. TheOtherBob 16:16, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
 * On the contrary, I understood deletion policy quite well when initiating this AFD and still do, also the existence of other pages (i.e. First Ladies) isn't relevant to this discussion. My point on page views and article age is that they can't convincingly be used as arguments to keep pages. There would be nothing even remotely embarrassing about deleting a relative who overall isn't nearly as well known to the public as President Lincoln's wife Mary or son Robert. Source quality can't disguise the fact that he gets little to no attention outside of family connections. Being Robert Todd Lincoln's son isn't enough by itself to warrant a page and neither is being a president's grandchild. I'd have different thoughts if he was actually noted for something of his individual merit, which isn't the case here. <b style="color:#009900">SNUGGUMS</b> (<b style="color:#009900">talk</b> / <b style="color:#009900">edits</b>) 04:24, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Respectfully, you seem to make this far too personal — which doesn’t speak well for your position — and you need to get over it, because no one is personally insulting you by pointing out that you’re wrong in this instance. And your personal insult to the other guy — that nonsense about shaking your head — wasn’t appropriate.  That out of the way, you haven’t offered a compelling counter-argument to the problem that certain subjects are notable because of their connection with really important and famous people —- and so historians have been interested in Lincoln’s grandson because he’s Lincoln grandson.  And that, at bottom, is the determining factor.  As I said, your error here is making it personal, but that extends also to your idea of notability.  Abraham Lincoln II is notable to historians.  They write about him.  That’s why we have reliable sources.  He’s not interesting to you personally?  Ok... but that’s quite intentionally not the test, because what’s interesting to you and what’s interesting to historians may be different.  A person who historians consider notable is notable, and deleting long-standing articles about historical figures is a good way to embarrass the project.  While we could merge and redirect — which is a question of length of articles — the articles in question are much longer than would ordinarily merit that, and would promptly result in a desire to split them, and that option doesn’t make sense when the article is long-standing and frequently-visited.  So the better option is to keep. TheOtherBob 11:33, 29 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Making it too personal? Not at all; I was pointing out ways the subject doesn't really warrant a page. It has nothing to do with whether I'm interested in him. WP:INTERESTING states one's personal interest or apathy in something is a poor argument for keeping/deleting a page. Also, shaking one's head isn't by any stretch of the imagination an insult or attack at anyone; it simply expresses how I find it unfortunate someone can't seem to see something differently. Please don't mischaracterize my actions like that. <b style="color:#009900">SNUGGUMS</b> (<b style="color:#009900">talk</b> / <b style="color:#009900">edits</b>) 13:29, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
 * For future reference, if you shake your head in disappointment at someone and then begin your comment by accusing them, it will be taken as an insult. It’s good to hear that it was unintended.  But on the merits, I agree that your or my interest or apathy in the page don’t really mean much here — the question is whether historians and other reliable sources write about this person.  And they do; that’s undisputed.  We should tread super carefully when deleting a page about a historical figure for which there are reliable sources, because the only way to do that is to inject personal biases about what is or is not interesting — as on the pure test of whether or not the subject is notable under Wikipedia standards it’s not a close question.  When considering whether to break the notability rules and delete it anyways, one thing we can and should ask is whether people use this resource — because this isn’t a list of Pokémon cheat codes, it’s a historical figure, and so if lots of people are searching for it then odds are that’s because it’s a useful encyclopedic resource.  TheOtherBob 14:04, 29 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Sorry if the head shaking came off the wrong way. Definitely no insult intended. Anyway, I'm not so sure a historian finding something interesting is any stronger a rationale for keeping than what Wikipedians think is or is not interesting. Deleting this wouldn't break any rules when this place isn't supposed to be a family history site as per WP:NOTGENEALOGY. I fail to see how he could meet WP:BIO even with the referencing used so far. "Historical figure" sounds like a stretch when he's not a big name worldwide or anything. <b style="color:#009900">SNUGGUMS</b> (<b style="color:#009900">talk</b> / <b style="color:#009900">edits</b>) 18:09, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I hear ya, but the thing is that historians (or other reliable sources) finding someone interesting is actually the definition of notability for this project. "People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject."  So if historians (reliable, intellectually independent sources) think a person is interesting enough to write about, then that makes them notable under our definition.  That's the beauty of the project--you and I don't have to debate whether someone is a big enough name worldwide, we just have to apply a relatively objective set of criteria that relies on what experts (here, historians) have done.  In terms of WP:NOTGENEALOGY, I don't think that including this could violate it--as that policy, which is about not creating list pages that include only family histories (and is thus a sub-policy of WP:DIRECTORY), states only that "Family histories should be presented only where appropriate to support the reader's understanding of a notable topic."  This isn't that.  Instead, I'd say the question arises under WP:INVALIDBIO, which suggests: "That person A has a relationship with well-known person B, such as being a spouse or child, is not a reason for a standalone article on A (unless significant coverage can be found on A)."  So the question is whether "significant coverage can be found on" this subject.  Because there seems to be plenty, it seems to me to fit the criteria pretty well.TheOtherBob 01:46, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
 * If we don't count sources closely affiliated with subject or family (namely a piece mainly on father Robert, something focusing on grandfather's grave, a tumblr post from some Lincoln family connection, and a presidential association's obituary), then that leaves us with a passing mention, a brief cumulative paragraph, one possibly decent paragraph when putting all text together on him specifically, a fair cumulative paragraph or two, a few offline references (one of which is a book on his dad) that I can't assess very well, and a book on President Lincoln. Remember that there's more nuance than a sheer number of sources (regardless of quality). <b style="color:#009900">SNUGGUMS</b> (<b style="color:#009900">talk</b> / <b style="color:#009900">edits</b>) 03:36, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I believe you've mischaracterized the recently added Tumblr source. That site is one of several resources used by the Lincoln Financial Foundation Collection, managed by the Indiana State Museum and a northeast Indiana county's public library, to share the history of its holdings.  The source is not a "post from some Lincoln family connection".  I don't expect this to change your perspective, but do believe accuracy matters here.  The dismissal of a two-page article dedicated to the subject, and based on two newly acquired letters by R.T. Lincoln, as an "obituary" seems uncalled for as well. —ADavidB 06:19, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Apologies for mislabeling who the Tumblr post is from. Just to be clear, I'm not dismissing the sources, just saying they aren't independent of the subject based on family connections and thus too closely affiliated with him to be considered third party. Coverage from references with such affiliations doesn't count towards notability regardless of depth. <b style="color:#009900">SNUGGUMS</b> (<b style="color:#009900">talk</b> / <b style="color:#009900">edits</b>) 11:42, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
 * The sources you list there are of a higher quality and deeper depth than we'd ordinarily require to establish notability -- so it's not just that there are lots of them, they're also entirely sufficient. Nor do I think that these raise concerns under WP:IIS -- which governs the independence of sources.  That policy is designed to make sure that articles are NPOV, i.e., that we don't let people write about themselves or those close to them.  This guy... well, "he's dead, Jim."  And not only is he dead, everyone who ever knew him, and everyone in his family, is also dead.  The last Lincoln descendant died in the 1980s.  And that there are historical groups that have an interest in this subject (and others of the Lincoln family) doesn't mean that we discount their sources as being somehow less than independent -- it means that, holy cow, there are historical groups that have an interest in this subject, so the odds of it being unencyclopedic are pretty low. TheOtherBob 21:29, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Brief mentions within sources aren't enough on their own. I wasn't doubting quality of Amy references for a moment, just noting that four of the used citations aren't independent sources, plus I could only find more than a total paragraph on him within one or maybe two of those not closely affiliated with this guy or his family. <b style="color:#009900">SNUGGUMS</b> (<b style="color:#009900">talk</b> / <b style="color:#009900">edits</b>) 22:48, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Several of these mentions are the entire source, and thus not brief. And all of the sources are independent; I assure you that this guy is not alive and well and editing Wikipedia, but rather is well and truly deceased.  None of the sources are "affiliated" with this guy or his family because, again, they're all dead.  They're not pining for the fjords.  They're passed on.  They're no more.  They have ceased to be.  They have expired and gone to meet their makers.  They're stiffs.  They're bereft of life, they rest in peace.  If we hadn't nailed them to the perch they'd be pushing up the daisies.  Their metabolic processes are now history.  They're off the twig.  They've kicked the bucket, they've shuffled off the mortal coil, run down the curtain, and joined the bleedin' choir invisible.  They are EX-LINCOLNS. (I can't believe I got to use that in an AfD discussion...lol.) TheOtherBob 00:55, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
 * How in the world are Abraham Lincoln Association, The Lincoln Financial Foundation Collection, Abraham Lincoln Research Site, and Abraham Lincoln Online not affiliated? Their family connection to him is quite obvious with such publication titles. Something clearly linked to his family like that can't possibly be considered independent by any reasonable measure. <b style="color:#009900">SNUGGUMS</b> (<b style="color:#009900">talk</b> / <b style="color:#009900">edits</b>) 04:10, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
 * There are no current descendants of Abraham Lincoln. They have all died out, with A. Lincoln II's demise likely contributing to that result. References to "Lincoln family" thus don't have a same meaning as would be applied to other families, particularly in a present tense.  That these organizations look at the former lives of members of the Lincoln family is not in doubt.  Whether having Lincoln in their name fully invalidates notability of their publication subjects remains in question. —ADavidB 12:50, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
 * These four sites could theoretically be managed by people from some other branch of the President's family (i.e. descended from a cousin), though either way are without a doubt pretty closely associated with him. Being a relative isn't the only way one can be affiliated with a person and their family (i.e. public relations team, close friends with certain family members), which would mean they're not independent sources on Lincoln. <b style="color:#009900">SNUGGUMS</b> (<b style="color:#009900">talk</b> / <b style="color:#009900">edits</b>) 14:11, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

<div class="xfd_relist" style="border-top: 1px solid #AAA; border-bottom: 1px solid #AAA; padding: 0px 25px;"> Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: When Commenting Be pithy. Be concise. Cite policies or guidelines if possible. Confine your comments to what is germane to the discussion and be brief. Above all, be brief!
 * Merge and redirect the few relevant details into Robert Todd Lincoln. There's the difference:  Robert Todd Lincoln had a separately notable life and career.  Abraham Lincoln II did not.  --Lockley (talk) 03:49, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep--User:TexianPolitico

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 00:41, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Merge relevant details about his infection and death to Robert Todd Lincoln. There is not enough significant, independent, reliable coverage to meet WP:BASIC - most of the sources are genealogical, not reliable (a Tumblr blog), or primarily about his father or grandfather. RebeccaGreen (talk) 03:02, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
 * One source is genealogical and should be replaced with a better one. As explained previously, the "Tumbler blog" is one of several resources used by the museum/library curators of a historic collection to communicate the history of their holdings. —ADavidB 03:51, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you for clarifying the Tumblr source. As the official blog of a museum, I'm happy to accept it as a reliable source. It still seems to me that the sources which are not genealogical (I include the cemetery website in that), including the two-page article and the blog, are mainly about his father's worries, grief and loss, or about his grandfather (the unveiling of the statue). RebeccaGreen (talk) 04:35, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
 * The two sources identified as genealogical are no longer cited by the article. —ADavidB 06:16, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't think you should automatically accept a museum blog as a reliable source, especially when it is not credited to a named author. Museum labels and annotation are frequently inaccurate, sometimes badly so. WP:SPS applies to museums just as much as to anyone else, and we can't even begin to assess whether we are dealing with a recognised expert until we have a name. <b style="background:#FAFAD2;color:#C08000">Spinning</b><b style="color:#4840A0">Spark</b> 20:26, 6 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Redirect to Robert Todd Lincoln and add a brief sentence on the circumstances of his death. This person has done absolutely nothing notable, the lad only made it to sixteen.  Notability is only presumed if a person is covered in sources, it is not guaranteed.  That is still an editorial decision; not everything found in sources can, or should, be made in to a Wikipedia article.  The source coverage here is largely equivalent to the coverage of the children of present-day celebrities.  WP:NOTINHERITED applies here.  The most substantial source is the Lincoln Collection blog, but that's not enough, either in substance or quality, to justify a stand-alone article. <b style="background:#FAFAD2;color:#C08000">Spinning</b><b style="color:#4840A0">Spark</b> 04:36, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
 * The museum blog source is applied to only one short sentence in the article. Its degree of mention in these discussions seems significantly out of proportion. Regarding summarization, per WP:NNC: "Notability guidelines do not apply to content within an article." There is plenty of other sourced content here. —ADavidB 23:14, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
 * So if you were to cut it out, what would you be left with in terms of reliable, in-depth sourcing? <b style="background:#FAFAD2;color:#C08000">Spinning</b><b style="color:#4840A0">Spark</b> 01:04, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
 * FWIW, per a 2013 USA Today article, a curator of the Indiana State Museum which publishes the suspect blog said "we're absolutely not about veneration" ... "We're an educational facility. My job is to present history as objectively as possible." —ADavidB 06:21, 9 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Redirect as suggested. I think we normally do keep articles onchildren of Presidents, but not beyond that.  DGG ( talk ) 18:58, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Redirect as proposed, possibly with some merging. It is entirely appropriate for him and his death to be mentioned in the Robert Todd Lincoln article (and the last paragraph in the section "Life, illness, and death" possibly should be incorporated in the Robert Todd Lincoln article, as his death was obviously an important event in RTL's life), but Abraham Lincoln II himself does not seem to meet notability requirements - if Jack was not Abraham Lincoln's namesake and Grandson, but simply the son of an ambassador, I do not think there is any way he would have an article. Dunarc (talk) 23:55, 8 February 2019 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <b style="color:red">Please do not modify it.</b> 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.