Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/James Francis Gallatin


 * 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 delete. The Bushranger One ping only 02:11, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

James Francis Gallatin

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Fails WP:BIO Cubbie15fan (talk) 01:00, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep WP:Bio Does clearly not fail WP:Bio please look at references and consider key role in James Gallatin Diary hoax/fraud and key role in J. R. Ackerley autobiography. James Francis Gallatin has been mentioned in Financial Times and The Independent in 2015, 100 years after his death.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sirmoor536825 (talk • contribs) 02:13, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete: does not meet threshold of notability. Quis separabit?  02:56, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete The article has lots of coat-racking. It adds up to this guy went bankrupt 14 times, comissioned a stained class window, may have forged a diary by his grandfather on the work of his great grandfather, but the status of the diary is not fully known and the article never claims that James Francis Gallatin would have been the forger. He may also have been in a homosexual relationship with a notable person. None of these things make him notable. There is no reason to have this article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 07:34, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
 * A good article about this person might certainly be possible, if the sourcing and substance could be boosted up well beyond what's here now, but this article as written is extremely far short of the mark. Nothing here provides any substantive reason why he would qualify for an article, and far too much of it is indeed WP:COATRACKed information about his notable ancestors rather than having anything to do with him. The article falls far short of demonstrating a "key role in the James Gallatin diary hoax/fraud" — it certainly insinuates that he might have been the forger in a "presumption of guilt by association" sort of way, but doesn't even come close to demonstrating or sourcing that as a proven or known fact. And the Ackerley autobiography doesn't appear substantial either — admittedly I haven't read the book, but from what's described here I'm not seeing any reason to believe that Gallatin gets anything more than a glancing namecheck on one or two pages rather than having any sort of "key role" (if he really had as key a role as claimed, it would be possible to write a lot more about the keyness of his role than has been shown here.) Delete, without prejudice against future recreation if something a lot more substantial and better-sourced than this can be written. Bearcat (talk) 17:59, 26 December 2015 (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.