Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Adelbert S. Hay


 * 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 keep. Sources were found during the discussion that participants determined would meet WP:GNG. (non-admin closure) Enos733 (talk) 05:34, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

Adelbert S. Hay

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Biography of a politician, not properly sourced as passing WP:NPOL. He held no role that was "inherently" notable enough to guarantee him a Wikipedia article without passing WP:GNG on the sourcing -- but two of the three footnotes here are from The Political Graveyard and a Blogspot blog, which are not notability-building sources at all, and while there is one real newspaper article about his death, that isn't enough all by itself. Notability is also not inherited, so he isn't automatically entitled to an article just because his father has one. Given that the subject died over 120 years ago, I'm willing to withdraw this if somebody with much better access to repositories of media coverage from circa 1900 than I've got can find the depth of coverage needed to salvage it, but nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to have a lot more than just one acceptable source. Bearcat (talk) 08:18, 16 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and United States of America. Bearcat (talk) 08:18, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

and more. Djflem (talk) 14:24, 16 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment a very cursory BEFORE would have revealed:
 * https://www.nytimes.com/search?query=Adelbert+S.+Hay
 * https://timesmachine.nytimes.com/timesmachine/1901/03/10/118461938.html?pageNumber=1
 * https://www.nytimes.com/1901/06/24/archives/adelbert-s-hays-career-cut-short-just-as-he-was-about-to-become.html?searchResultPosition=5
 * https://timesmachine.nytimes.com/timesmachine/1901/06/26/117967268.pdf?pdf_redirect=true&ip=0
 * https://timesmachine.nytimes.com/timesmachine/1901/06/26/117967237.pdf?pdf_redirect=true&ip=0
 * https://timesmachine.nytimes.com/timesmachine/1902/08/31/102433825.html?pageNumber=23
 * I did every ounce of WP:BEFORE that I was able to do with the resources for 120-year-old American media coverage that are actually available to me, and you are not entitled to imply any negligence on my part. You've got access to New York Times archives? Great. I don't. Bearcat (talk) 17:07, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 08:32, 23 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Neutral: I'm torn on this one. On one end, I feel it can be redirected to John Hay; there isn't much going on here as this is someone who died when their career was still nascent. On the other end, however, there is some significant coverage on him on newspapers.com, such as . Curbon7 (talk) 17:51, 16 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Coverage of him is also limited to 1899-1901, so it is a needle-in-haystack situation. Curbon7 (talk) 17:52, 16 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment His death played a major role in John Hay’s emotional decline, I believe it’s worth it’s own page. Additionally, there’s enough information on it unique to him that redirecting to Hay Sr. seems unhelpful. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PeacockShah (talk • contribs) 19:42, 16 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Merge and redirect to John Hay. What little there is to say about this person is of encyclopedic significance only to the biography of the father. BD2412  T 20:58, 16 October 2022 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star   Mississippi  01:20, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep passes GNG with signiicant coverage. Article needs expansion.Djflem (talk) 11:19, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * I'm erring on a weak keep here but am still unsure. I've found quite a bit of information on his appointment as US consul at Pretoria during the Boer War - some of which I've added and this is not even all of it. The trouble is, all of these books are from the early 1900s and are probably not especially reliable (much like old newspapers). They do indicate notability but there seems to be nothing since that time written about him. Vladimir.copic (talk) 23:27, 31 October 2022 (UTC) Moving to Keep after seeing this source . Vladimir.copic (talk) 03:33, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Contemporary newspapers are generally just as reliable as modern newspapers. If this weren't the case, many of our articles on historical figures would be fucked. You just have to be aware and a bit more careful. Curbon7 (talk) 00:49, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I probably wasn't clear - I meant that you need a little more caution and they tend to hyperbolism. (I wouldn't say they are as reliable as modern newspapers though.) The recent Doug Coldwell incident shows the problems that arise when resting solely on old newspaper and book sources. Far better for an RS to have done the cautious reading of old sources and written something up for us to use. Vladimir.copic (talk) 03:16, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. Curbon7 (talk) 03:27, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep based on the above discussion, his death made international news. Bearian (talk) 02:48, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep. There is enough evidence presented here of significant independent coverage to demonstrate that the subject passes WP:BASIC/WP:SIGCOV. There's no esstential policy based reason to merge the content into the article on his father; although there may be optional editorial reasons to do so. For that reason, any merger should be made through discussion at WP:MERGEPROP, and not through this AFD.4meter4 (talk) 05:00, 7 November 2022 (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.