Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Charles C. Beaman


 * 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   no consensus. to delete. Valid concerns raised on both sides, but there is ultimately no consensus to delete this article. StarM 23:06, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Charles C. Beaman

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

I came across this article looking for a cleanup project. But in reading it, I came to the conclusion that this guy simply does not meet WP:NOTE. So I'm placing it here for others' opinions. If it survives an AfD, I'll take the time to clean it up, but I don't want to waste my time prettifying something that should be deleted. Un sch  ool  08:57, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
 * According to the article, he has an entry in a Dictionary of American Biography and "An authoritative review of his life and career, "Memorial of Charles C. Beaman," prepared by Edmund Wetmore, appeared in Bar of the City of N. Y. Report, 1901, p. 96". Not enough? Juzhong (talk) 11:32, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
 * No, those two alone are not nearly enough. DreamGuy (talk) 19:11, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
 * By past practice at AfD and the guidelines, these substantial multiple independent reliable sources are quite enough, and of course there is much more out there.John Z (talk) 21:20, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
 * First off, it's debatable whether those are "substantial multiple independent reliable sources"... but even if sources are reliable for facts that alone doesn' mean they prove notability. The sources and topic must have some sort of notability for modern readers. Sources from more than a century ago and a trivial listing in a dictionary that covers tons of people (like a Who's Who) only demonstrate notability to someone from a century ago. DreamGuy (talk) 16:20, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
 * This is about the most blatant example of recentism that I've seen here. If he was notable a century ago, then he's still notable now in Wikipedia terms. Phil Bridger (talk) 09:45, 4 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep Clearly notable per refs in article, which also include the NYT obit at the top of the 312 gnews hits, which is quite a lot.John Z (talk) 11:58, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep; damn you! I was about to post the NYtimes obit :P. The article definitely needs a rewrite in tone. Unschool: the NY times obituary was on the first page of google search results. Next time I'd advise working out notability yourself and only bringing it to AfD if you're still not sure. Ironholds (talk) 12:53, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
 * That last sentence almost sounds like a claim that it's obviously a notable person and that raising the question was a waste of everyone's time. I'd go the opposite and say it's obviously not notable and suggest to you that maybe you could learn a thing or two from the person who nominated it. DreamGuy (talk) 19:10, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Ironholds, I'm not trying to be cheeky here, but after she died, my grandmother (a high school receptionist) was in the New York Times as well, so I'm not sure that that meets the test. But I'm learning here, and I don't mind the guidance of any who offer it.  Un  sch  ool  03:18, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
 * That sounds like a death notice (non-selective) rather than an obituary (in the NYT, very selective).John Z (talk) 22:43, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
 * That could be, John Z; I was a teenager at the time, and wouldn't have noticed the difference. Question, is what we are calling an obit in the NYT different than other major city papers, such as the Chicago Tribune or Washington Post?  Un  sch  ool  22:48, 1 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep: Passes WP:BIO. Schuy m 1  ( talk ) 16:52, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
 * And, how, exactly, does it pass WP:BIO? Care to explain your reasoning? Maybe a specific example from the criteria as applied to this person? DreamGuy (talk) 19:10, 31 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete Since when does a NYT obit from 1900 mean someone is automatically notable for Wikipedia? Obituaries at the time were paid placements. Still are now in many places. On top of that thee were lots of minor celebrities in centuries past which would not come anywhere close to meeting current notability standards. If there are no contemporary sources calling him notable, then he's not notable. If that's the best you have, that's clearly not enough.DreamGuy (talk) 19:07, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
 * When an NYT obituary means notability for Wikipedia? - is since always afaik. Never seen anyone with an NYT obit not be kept. Do you have a source that they were paid placements back then?- something I strongly doubt. There's a difference between obituaries and paid death notices. The existence of contemporary sources is also something never required.  The opposite - that notability is permanent - is what has had longstanding consensus.John Z (talk) 21:09, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Do you have any refs to back up your claim that notability is permanent? That makes no sense and has never ever been how things have been done here. And, seriously, the idea that a NYTT obituary from any years means automatic notability in Wikipedia is not only bizarre but obviously completely impractical if you take three seconds to think about it. We barely have articles for notable political figures of that time, let alone any member of society whose passing got mentioned. Someone who was a DA is 1887 isn't notable now because he was notable then. It's just common sense. DreamGuy (talk) 16:05, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Notability. Juzhong (talk) 22:52, 1 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete: Fails WP:BIO. Schuy m 1  ( talk ) 19:13, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
 * So how about this book about him? THIS LAND OF PURE DELIGHT: CHARLES C. BEAMAN AND BLOWMEDOWN FARM ? Juzhong (talk) 19:30, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Juzhong, that looks pretty significant to me. DreamGuy, does this affect your opinion?  Un  sch  ool  03:22, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
 * That's a self-published book by the people who run an obscure historical site. It's comparable to an art gallery publishing their own exhibition catalog, an auction house printing up a book of the items they have for sale, or toy retailer printing up a retail catalog. None of those say anything about real world notability. If the people who have vending machines at Rest Stop #43 on some state highway write up a brochure about the rest stop hoping to get people to stop by, that doesn't mean the rest stop deserves a Wikipedia article. Juzhong keeps adding things he/she thinks are sources to lots of AFDs lately, but none of them come anywhere close to Wikipedia standards. I really wish that someone who is so vocal on so many AFDs would take the time to familiarize him or herself with our standards before trying to pass off such fluff as real sources. DreamGuy (talk) 16:05, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Suppose he helped found a really notable rest stop, and then the folks who were continuing the legacy of the rest stop thought it was worth commemorating him by writing a book? Juzhong (talk) 22:21, 1 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep — Could be better sourced, but is covered via multiple secondary sources. MuZemike  ( talk ) 23:41, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep He's in the Dictionary of American Biography, and being in the national biography of any country is considered undoubted reason why there should be a Wikipedia article. There's really no need to show anything more. But since the NYT was questioned as evidence of notability:  We do have a consistent policy of regarding an obit in the NYTimes as proof of notability, and every article I can remember defended on such basis has been kept, 100% of the time.   Their obits are not indiscriminate or written by the family. If a case is to be made that this was not the case in their earlier years, I'd want to see some sources saying so.Lots of wp  practices seem bizarre until one  realizes that it helps to have direct and unambiguous criteria. We then do not have to judge on the basis of what seems important, but we can judge on the basis of what good authorities consider to be notable. Otherwise we start getting into a dispute about the notability of lawyers and analyzing each career. we'd do better to write articles. DGG (talk) 18:49, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment I think an entry in the Dictionary of American Biography is enough to confer notability. However, it appears that the bulk of this article (up to "He died in New York in December of the following year. -- H. W. Howard Knott") has been copied verbatim from that source (which is available through Gale's online Biography Resource Center). Zagalejo^^^ 20:08, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep DGG has the right of it, as far as I have been able to tell from other debates. Additionally, his book on the Alabama claims is used as a source in that article and was reprinted in the Michigan Historical Reprint Series. This suggests that he made an enduring contribution to his field, though I admit to not checking more deeply. - Eldereft (cont.) 18:14, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Either the NYT obit or the Dictionary of American Biography alone would have been enough evidence of notability, per long-standing consensus. Jfire (talk) 08:33, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Obvious keep. More than enough sources have been presented to demonstrate notability. Phil Bridger (talk) 09:45, 4 January 2009 (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.