Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Harris Underhill


 * 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.   A rbitrarily 0   ( talk ) 17:30, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

David Harris Underhill

 * – ( View AfD View log )


 * Related AFD: Articles for deletion/Estelle Skidmore Doremus

Notability not established. Only cite is an obituary. Dennis Brown (talk) 23:20, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep - Withdrawn by nominator - After doing some checking and consulting with people more knowledgeable than myself, an editoral obit from the NYT seems enough to establish notability by itself. Common outcomes trumps personal reservations, by any definition of "consensus".  I would recommend anyone review this and consider keeping, or administrator close as withdrawn.  Dennis Brown (talk) 11:33, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 02:41, 24 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete This person was a librarian and a genealogist specializing in people named "Underhill". Neither is a claim to notability.  Coincidentally, I wrote an article myself about someone named "Underhill", namely Robert L. M. Underhill.  The difference is that Bob Underhill was actually notable.  Cullen 328   Let's discuss it  05:25, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete: Lack of notability. Delete this and the other Underhill articles created by the author of this page. Toddst1 (talk) 14:35, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete and transwiki to Underpedia. EEng (talk) 22:43, 25 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete, doesn't meet notability requirements, sources are primary except for obituary, which everyone gets, notable or not. Yworo (talk) 21:33, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Very strong Keep The obit is a full editorial obit in the NY Times, and such an obit has always been considered to be irrefutable evidence of notable. It's not a local newspaper obit, which everyone in the town may get. Nor is it a paid obit. It's relatively short, 4 paragraphs,but it's an editorial obit.  DGG ( talk ) 05:33, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete: WP:NN librarian and NN Underhill.  WP:NOTINHERITED. Toddst1 (talk) 22:46, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Very strong Keep Full editorial obit in the NY Times and extensive work as editor serves as evidence of notability. To suggest he is not notable as the result of being a librarian, would make it seem like all librarians are not notable. That is clearly not the case, see Category:American librarians. Placepromo (talk) 23:38, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Week keep Yes, we normally consider a NYT obit to be evidence of national significance, but I'm not sure that was true in 1936. In particular, Underhill lived and worked in New York, so this obit could be considered "local". Google Books and the news archive turn up only a few routine mentions. However, I am inclined to give him the benefit of the doubt, since material from his era is unlikely to be found online. He held a responsible position at the New York Public Library and founded a society that gets quite a bit of coverage. The fact that it is primarily a genealogical society does not mean it is unimportant. --MelanieN (talk) 16:23, 31 December 2011 (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.