Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Black McCains


 * 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. There does seem to be enough notability here apart from the relationship with the Senator to discount the WP:BLP1E argument. Such additional notability has not been fully developed in the article but obviously seems to exist as a part of the American Civil Rights Movement.

Black McCains

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Reliable sources only cover the Black McCains in the context of the descendant event. Per WP:BLP1E, a separate biography is unlikely to be warranted, particularly since the family as a collective lacks notability independent of the connection to the U.S. Presidential candidate John McCain. A redirect to or merge into John McCain is a better option. Also, the topic fails notability. -- Suntag  ☼  21:36, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions.   -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:08, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions.   -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:08, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Wikipedia is not news, especially not of the filler when there's no story variety. RayAYang (talk) 22:12, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Per nom.  Lady  ★  Galaxy  03:27, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Wikipedia isn't the And finally, tonight... timefiller segment on a local newscast.  Nate  • ( chatter ) 10:27, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I can respect delete votes on the merits, but this one is couched as a hyperbolic mischaracterization. The black McCains have been featured in The Wall Street Journal and on CNN and NPR.  For those who care to investigate, the central argument of their chief proponent, Douglas Blackmon, is that the black McCains' notability is not pinned to their incidental relationship to John McCain but that the family is only now garnering due recognition for their dedication to dangerous civil rights work. Robert K S (talk) 18:01, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Candidates have all kinds of relatives that rise out from under the woodwork when they get plenty of notability. This is no different and I'm voting on the merits that these stories only come out to fill time or column space.  Nate  • ( chatter ) 20:12, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per above. Kind of interesting bit of trivia about descendants of slaves owned by an ancestor of John McCain, and I'm sure there are interesting details about the Dunhams, Barack Obama's white ancestors.  Not enough for a Wikipedia article, however. Mandsford (talk) 16:57, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep, the sources have established the notability. U.S. Presidency-related topics always stay in wikipedia. --Vsion (talk) 17:49, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm trying to remember which of the Senators is the United States President. Mandsford (talk) 00:24, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep--mounting number of references from high-quality sources. At some point when there is enough discussion of a subject in the media it becomes notable--by definition--the subject has been noted. Robert K S (talk) 18:21, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Subject is legitimate, and the news sources are top-tier. Wasted Time R (talk) 00:04, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Also, I've added some of the backstory to this which goes back to 2000 and was well-sourced by a Salon article. Wasted Time R (talk) 02:26, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Weak keep Sourcing exists (and is solid and non-trivial), so this isn't an issue of "inherited notability". I worry that this is driven by recentism, but that isn't a reason for deletion.  I would prefer this be merged into something related to the 2008 McCain campaign, but John McCain is a poor merger target.  I don't work in the election area much, so I don't know what would be best.  My other suggestion is to figure out the merger idea before November 4th, when everyone will lose interest with the myriad election 2008 sub-topics we are accumulating. Protonk (talk) 07:41, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
 * My own position is that, as far as historical notability on the tree of human knowledge goes, this topic will speedily disappear if McCain loses, and be nothing but a filler human interest story of no real significance. If McCain should win, the topic might be developed further. RayAYang (talk) 03:35, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Sure, but the article will remain. This is the problem.  Some topics are harder to resolve before the election, because emotions are so high.  But some topics are easier to resolve before the election because otherwise interest would be close to zero.  It behoves us to figure out what to do with this while it will still gets some hits from the outside world, because after the 4th (regardless of who wins, IMO), no one will bother with this.  But the article will remain, largely in whatever state it was in come election night.  But as far as this AfD goes, I can take it or leave it. Protonk (talk) 04:49, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

&mdash; Godheval T C W 16:28, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep or Merge – I think it is noteworthy in light of the fact that a sitting U.S. Senator (regardless of whether or not he wins the presidency) denies that his family ever owned slaves. Whether or not it stands apart from McCain himself I agree is debatable, but in that case it should be merged.  I'm just not sure where.


 * 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.