Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Francis Jay 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. What it mainly comes down to is the interpretation as to whether or not the sources sufficiently establish notability, which there is a lack of consensus in determining that. --MuZemike 20:40, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Francis Jay Underhill

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Only cite is an obituary. Notability not claimed or established. Dennis Brown (talk) 23:17, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Withdrawing nomination - keep - DGG is correct, and I should have consulted him before going to AFD. Having only one cite is weak, but it is a strong citation in that it isn't a paid obit and we have to give the NYT some credit when it comes to determining who is notable enough for an obit in their paper.  Likely, other cites exist and are just very hard to find.  I would request an admin close as 'withdrawn'.  Dennis Brown (talk) 14:23, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete. I can't see any notability here. --DanielRigal (talk) 23:40, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 02:40, 24 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete Underwhelming notability. EEng (talk) 22:47, 25 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete, simply doesn't meet notability requirements. Yworo (talk) 22:08, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep Full obit in the NYT; that by itself is sufficient for notability . Their judgment is better than ours. I note this is not a paid obit, nor a small town newspaper where everyone gets obits. For the delete !voters, what;s the basis for your opinions?  DGG ( talk ) 05:42, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Can you point to policy/guideline/whatever indicating that an NYT obit alone (because in this case, that's really all there is -- the rest of the cites being family genealogy and so on) establishes notability? That might be true for the last 50-100 years, but in the 19th C, certainly, even the great NYT carried obits that were simply courtesy to prominent families, even if the deceased himself wasn't particularly prominent.  EEng (talk) 14:39, 28 December 2011 (UTC)


 * I'll take over the nomination (so to speak) if that's procedurally possible. I'm not convinced by the NYT-obit argument.  Even if all claims in the article are true, I don't see any kind of notability.  (I don't have access to NYT just now for some reason, but I'm assume the article here on WP has everything the obit does.) This is one of a pile of "Underhill" articles someone's creating, and it certainly seems many of them aren't notable.  A spirited engagement on the NYT-obit question would help clarify how to proceed on the others.  EEng (talk) 14:44, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
 * You can always renominate if you feel that strongly. After a little review, I tend to agree with DGG's assessment based on Common Outcomes, which is why I withdrew.  Since the AFD has already gone on for days, starting over with a fresh AFD (if you choose) would be the most prudent way to proceed since this was brought to light.  It isn't like we are in a hurry.  Dennis Brown (talk) 15:49, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm mostly interested in this idea that an NYT obit is dispositive. I  don't see anything about it at WP:OUTCOMES -- is that what you're referring to as "Common Outcomes"? EEng (talk) 15:53, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm referring to my deferring to DGG when he told me that in the past, an obit in the NYT has held up as enough to demonstrate notability in other AFDs even when it was the only reference in the article. A little looking around convinced me that he was correct in this statement.  I still think it is a bit thin, but if the consensus of Wikipedians is that a NYT obit is enough, then it is enough.  My decision to nom it in the first place wasn't to change consensus or go against it, it was to (what I thought at the time) uphold it.  Dennis Brown (talk) 16:09, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
 * The process appears to be for an editor uninvolved in the discussion to close the discussion. Then you would post to the talk page of that editor if you disagree with the decision WP:NotEarly. Consensus has shifted to keep on the other Underhill articles and appears to be shifting that way here too.IDKremer (talk) 13:30, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

*Keep Full obit in the NYT; supplemented by several additional sources since the AFD was placed. IDKremer (talk) 13:30, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Please note that I was Placepromo and now am using a different name.IDKremer (talk) 20:45, 30 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment Please see the discussion Wikipedia talk:Notability (people) for whether obits, and particularly NYT obits, can be used to establish notability. --MelanieN (talk) 16:28, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Weak delete His career and accomplishments do not seem to amount to notability. In this case, I am inclined to regard the 1936 NYT obituary as a "local" obit, rather than implying national significance as it usually would today. --MelanieN (talk) 16:33, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Strong keep. NY Times sources say it all. Notable historical figure, based on 3rd party publications. Tinton5 (talk) 23:52, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete: and transwiki to Underhillpedia. DGG is wrong about the obit satisfying GNG per MelanieN.  Toddst1 (talk) 01:46, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Not sure Melanie is that convinced, or she wouldn't have started this conversation. It is a valid question to ask, but if you follow that discussion, she is saying that an obit in the NYT IS notable, in general. (To quote her exact words: Almost anyone getting a substantial obit in the New York Times is going to be notable.) In this particular AFD, she is saying that the NYT is a "local paper" for the purpose of this one obit, a position I would disagree with.  This isn't counter to what DGG said about NYT obits in the least, it only raises the question "Is the NYT acting like a local paper instead of the NYT in this instance?".  And btw, the snide remarks about "Underhillpedia" are really not helpful in an open discussion, please refrain. Dennis Brown (talk) 02:38, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Weak Delete, the obit in the NYT looks pretty good, but there doesn't seem to be much else from what I'd consider reliable sources on this person. It's a tricky one, to be sure.  Lankiveil (speak to me) 05:11, 1 January 2012 (UTC).
 * Strong Keep, a number of people want to make this an issue about the NYT obituary and whether that indicates notability or not. I'm inclined to suggest that it does. Further, I think to say just because the obituary was in the 1930's makes it less significant is a false argument. The New York Times, was, is, and will always be the paper of record for nationally significant figures. Whether or not the NYT is authoritative, I do not believe that should be a basis for decision. It should be noted too that the original AFD request and many of the recommendations to delete were made prior to substantial improvements being made to the article, and numerous secondary sources being added. Underhill's claim to significance comes from the following:
 * 1) Being an important business figure, as well as a collector of books, art, and a very rare Antonio Stradivari violin.
 * 2) At the end of his life he made a sizable bequest to the Boston Museum of Fine Arts and the Boston Public Library, among other sources. These gifts would be of interest to those who care about either of these institutions, or broader patterns of people who collect books and art objects, as well as those seeking to understand how institutions of a national caliber like those in Boston built their collection.
 * 3) Others want to make a claim that being an Underhill diminishes the significance of Francis Jay Underhill and all others with the name. The fact of the matter is that of all the other Underhill's with an AFD discussion, most if not all have been retained, and none have been deleted to date. The reality is that in their time members of the Underhill family held important positions in the military, business, literature and the arts, and related fields. The fact that Francis Jay Underhill was President of the Underhill Society of America for many years and this was prominently mentioned in the banner of his obituary, is also a claim to notability. While this may seem novel to us now, at the time participation in family and social institutions like the Underhill Society, Daughters of the American Revolution, and similar organizations conveyed a great deal of prestige on the participants.
 * 4) Francis Jay Underhill is a figure which ties into the broader history of the financial sector in late 19th and early 20th century America. He worked with Fisk & Robinson and J. & W. Seligman & Co. and serves as a linking figure between these two firms that played a leading role in financing and construction of the Panama Canal among other things. To the extent that Underhill was a part of several of the leading bond houses of his times further adds to and strengthens his claim to notability for significance.

To close, as noted above, I was originally posting under Placepromo and now am posting under IDKremer, as it was advised to me that this would be a more appropriate username to use. IDKremer (talk) 20:30, 2 January 2012 (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.