Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Benjamin Warrington


 * 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.  Sandstein  12:20, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

Benjamin Warrington

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Small town politician that fails WP:NPOL ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 20:38, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 20:39, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 20:39, 7 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Weak keep He's mentioned in a number of histories of Nauvoo and the events surrounding the death of Joseph Smith, as I summarized in expanding the article slightly. No coverage is in-depth, but it's borderline when combined per WP:BASIC. The key question for me is whether this source, a biographical entry in the digital edition of the Joseph Smith Papers project, is a reliable secondary source; if it is, Warrington is notable, because it gives substantial coverage about his birth, career, and death based on what seems to be carefully compiled primary sources (censuses, local archives, etc). The project says it's been endorsed by the National Archives’ National Historical Publications and Records Commission, which sounds impressive.


 * If not kept, it's worth merging a few sentences to Nauvoo Expositor, as his role as the sole dissenter to its destruction is well-documented and noted in many histories of the event. FourViolas (talk) 02:54, 8 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete Warrington was a member of a city council in the second largest city in Illinois. However it boils down to he is really notable for the vote he cast and later being on a grand jury. None of this is enough to make him individually notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:20, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete comes nowhere close to meeting notability criteria at present. It's not even close unless there's something that's totally missing from the article. Blue Square Thing (talk) 21:22, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
 * You don't think this is close to WP:BASIC's pathway to notability through non-substantial but more than trivial coverage in multiple independent reliable sources? FourViolas (talk) 22:21, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
 * No, I think that sets the bar really low and that there's nothing inherently notable in his life which should cause us to create a page on him. The trial of Smith, yes, OK - and he might be mentioned by name there. But that's really it unless we want to be creating pages on a huge number of local politicians. Honestly, every high school and many primary school headteachers would get a wiki page if we set the bar at that level, as well as just about very local councillor. Blue Square Thing (talk) 22:44, 10 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Weak Delete None of the sources in the article talk about him substantively - they're all just passing mentions with the exception of the one which talks about the city council incident with the press, in which he's mentioned three times for his comments on the city council. I reviewed a handful of the sources at random at Joseph Smith papers and didn't see anything which covered him significantly (if there's a good one I missed please ping me and I will re-assess). I think some of the information could be merged somewhere, and I'm really more of a neutral vote than anything else, but if forced to make a decision I don't think there's enough here to keep on WP:GNG grounds. SportingFlyer  talk  04:34, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete per .John Pack Lambert. --Gprscrippers (talk) 18:13, 12 November 2018 (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.