Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Edwin Burr Curtiss


 * 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. NW ( Talk ) 12:45, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Edwin Burr Curtiss

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

fails WP:BIO. simply being president of a company does not guarantee notability. I acknowledge that he died in 1928 so references may be harder to find but I still believe he fails WP:BIO. gnews search. also this search. LibStar (talk) 01:58, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. allen四names 02:16, 26 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete - insufficient information for article. The Four Deuces (talk) 15:19, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong delete. I looked up his NY Times obituary and found that he wasn't even president of Spalding. He was just a director of the company. He founded a non-notable law firm in San Francisco in the 19th Century. I edited the article to add his birth date and this info, but I hope it's moot as definitely it should be deleted. His Times obit, at a time when they were giving obits to practically everybody, was all of one paragraph. I honestly don't understand why an article on this gent was created in the first place. --JohnnyB256 (talk) 15:58, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
 * In the business hierarchy a director is above a president. The board of directors with a majority vote can remove the president. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 18:27, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
 * A board of directors is above the president, not any individual director. For the purposes of this AfD, I'll grant that he was president. There are still no sources establishing notability or upon which this stub can be expanded. --JohnnyB256 (talk) 19:56, 28 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep The NYT states "His bride, who gave her age on license application as 55, is the widow of Edwin Burr Curtiss, former president of A. G. Spalding Bros." which certainly reinforces the claim that he had been president of that firm.  He is in multiple editions of Dictionary of American Biography.   Notable as he is included in DAB and is specifically mentioned in NYT as President of A. G. Spaulding.  Collect (talk) 20:22, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
 * His obituary did not say he was president of the company. But even if he was, that alone would not confer notability. He was so obscure at the time that he warranted a one-paragraph obituary in the New York Times, and he received no coverage during his lifetime, nothing except that tiny obit after his death, no mention in books other than being mentioned in a dictionary of biography. --JohnnyB256 (talk) 15:36, 28 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep and expand. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 06:32, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
 * almost sounds like WP:JUSTAVOTE. LibStar (talk) 07:05, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Almost, but not quite. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 08:08, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
 * How do you propose to expand an article when nobody wrote anything about him? --JohnnyB256 (talk) 15:39, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
 * If "nobody wrote anything about him" the article would be blank now. It appears that people have already written about him before Wikipedia. Cheers. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 18:24, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, there is his tiny obit and the obit of his wife, and this article uses up all the information in those two articles. He is mentioned in a dictionary of biography according to Google Books, which no doubt just duplicated what is in the Times obit. Are there any other sources I've not mentioned? --JohnnyB256 (talk) 19:53, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Once again you are engaging in original research and speculation, when you conclude: "which no doubt just duplicated what is in the Times obit". We are to avoid speculation in research for Wikipedia. Maybe behind the door of the barn there is a unicorn or maybe a horse, or maybe nothing. It is easier to just open the door and look. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 20:45, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Editors engage in original research and speculation all the time, in deciding whether or not there will be sufficient sources to sustain an article. The rule against OR pertains to article space.

--JohnnyB256 (talk) 14:41, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Reread what I wrote: "We are to avoid speculation in research for Wikipedia" in response to you writing "He is mentioned in a dictionary of biography according to Google Books, which no doubt just duplicated what is in the Times obit". (my emphasis added) Your speculation doesn't add anything useful to the argument. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 00:01, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
 * More to the point -- it is a tad unlikely that anything written before his death duplicated his obit .   See also  showing the Curtiss brothers.  He was an incorporator of the Fairfield County Golf Club (now Greenwich Country Club) in 1897 (thus one of the oldest operating clubs in the US).   even gives his golf score for 22 Feb 1897 (he tied for the Freeman Cup). Francis P. Freeman may deserve an article - he was Vanderbilt's broker, and his wife was related to Morgan!  Collect (talk) 12:52, 30 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep, sourced and notability in tact. -- Banj e  b oi   09:38, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Ample reliable and verifiable sources are provided in the article to establish notability. Alansohn (talk) 22:48, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep If he's notable enough for a print encyclopedia, he's notable enough for Wikipedia. Edward321 (talk) 15:22, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep I agree. Clicking on Google Book search, and he has been mentioned in a print Encyclopedia or Almanac, which makes him notable by Wikipedia standards.   D r e a m Focus  23:28, 29 November 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.