Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/James J. Kenney


 * 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. Guy (Help!) 15:00, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

James J. Kenney

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Non-notable person Zackmann08 (talk) 05:31, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom - —Мандичка YO 😜 05:49, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
 * That's very convincing reasoning. EEng (talk) 05:56, 14 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep  , plus the newspaper obit from which the article is taken. EEng (talk) 05:56, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Being mentioned is not sufficient; the death notice is typically considered a standard mention. Please see WP:GNG; significant, long-term coverage in multiple sources is required. The article has a single reference with no title - is that the obituary? I have no way of seeing the Berkeley Daily Gazette, March 24-27, 1916. —Мандичка YO 😜 07:30, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
 * An extended obituary of a public official is not a "standard mention" (by which I think you mean WP:ROUTINE); that you can't see it is neither here nor there. And contrary to what you say, multiple sources are not required (not strictly, anyway) and your notion of "long-term coverage" is completely made up -- see WP:NTEMP: 'once a topic has been the subject of "significant coverage" in accordance with the general notability guideline, it does not need to have ongoing coverage.' EEng (talk) 07:02, 21 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep Notable certainly in local history. Refs are not numerous, but exist. Tmangray (talk) 07:01, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep Individual seems inherently notable and above refs further demonstrate this. Nominator hasn't offered any reasoning to suggest non-notability. -- Non-Dropframe   talk   07:22, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Nobody is inherently notable. "Non-notable person" is shorthand in this part of Wikipedia to indicate the subject does not meet WP:GNG. That's all the reason necessary. Anyone who counters that must provide solid evidence that the person meets the stated requirements. Unfortunately not a single reference listed above comes close to proving notability. Please review the requirements; if you can find better references, please post them here.  —Мандичка YO 😜 07:30, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
 * So your argument is that unless other editors can prove a subject is notable, it is not notable? All one needs to do is claim something isn't notable? Seems to me like the nominator and those who agree with the nominator have the onus when it comes to establishing non-notability. Establishing "significant coverage" by today's standards for a subject who died nearly 100 years ago isn't possible. Rather, we have to accept a different standard that allows for the fact that 100+ year old documentation isn't always available online. -- Non-Dropframe   talk   07:44, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
 * - Yes, that's how AfD works. You might scroll through all the ones from yesterday to get a better idea of it goes: Articles for deletion/Log/2015 May 12, or read Guide_to_deletion. It's actually not too hard to prove someone is notable, even from 100 years ago, thanks to the huge amount of digitization and Google Books, etc., not to mention continuing mentions.  —Мандичка YO 😜 08:09, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Cool, well, I'd love to stick around and have you talk down to me some more but I've made my point and I don't expect to sway you. -- Non-Dropframe   talk   08:27, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry if you think I was "talking down" to you - I was trying to be helpful by suggesting a way to get more familiar with the AfD process.  —Мандичка YO 😜 08:36, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:01, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:01, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 02:40, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment The WP:BURDEN of proof is on the one claiming something, including notability: it is easier to provide a source that shows something is notable when it is, than demonstrating that no source ever (even outside the internet) proved notability when it is not. This does not mean sources can be dismissed without argument. If there is indeed an extended obituary (i.e., not a 5-line mention in a local newspaper) he would be notable in my view; does someone have access to that? Tigraan (talk) 15:16, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Actually, BURDEN applies to article content -- content, if challenged, can't survive unless a specific source can be located and named. In establishing notability however, we only need to conclude that we believe appropriate sources exist -- they don't have to be explicitly enumerated. If, for example, a brief editorial mentions that "every paper in the city has carried a dozen articles on Topic X in the last few months" then we don't have to actually go find those articles to conclude Topic X is notable. This is the basis for many of the notability guidelines such as WP:ACADEMIC's Point 2, "The person has received a highly prestigious academic award or honor at a national or international level" -- it's not that such an award makes the recipient notable per se, but rather it's the way of the world that recipients of such honors will almost always be covered in multiple reliable sources, and we're allowed to presume the existence of such sources without having to go find them right now.
 * I'm only mentioning this for the record. The sources in the article are more than adequate. EEng (talk) 06:28, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 03:28, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Basically Uncertain because it seems there aren't many available sources and my searches found results here (the best entirely and it's only a few links all from the early 1900s) with minor mentions here. In a way, I like the article because it's interesting, neat and at least sourced but there could be better sources so maybe delete for now and maybe mention somewhere else. SwisterTwister   talk  15:09, 1 June 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.