Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/James W. Maney


 * 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. Non-admin closure.  Jujutacular  T · C 17:34, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

James W. Maney

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Non-notable bio; possibly meant to advertise his mansion, which (the article helpfully tells us) is now a bed and breakfast Orange Mike   &#x007C;   Talk  03:15, 6 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep Take another look; a lot turned up about him on Google. So I have added detail and references to the article. Turns out he really was fairly notable. He invented a well known earth-moving tool, and his house is the centerpiece of a National Register of Historic Places historic district named for him. --MelanieN (talk) 01:48, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Later: added more information, more references, and an infobox. --MelanieN (talk) 04:56, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget  00:23, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Keep. MelanieN has done the preliminary basic research Orangemike couldn't manage before making the proposal for deletion. Perfectly reasonable article to keep - the Maney Historic District is listed on the National Register of Historic Places and named for him.  The original model of the earth-moving tool he invented is in the Smithsonian Institution.  Etc.  Why not do a bit of adequate basic research before proposing and contribute to the net value of knowledge in Wikipedia rather than deducting from it and diverting other people's time and energy (though thanks to MelanieN for producing an interesting and informative article as a result) Opbeith (talk) 12:46, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I like to rescue an occasional article, when it seems like a worthy subject but inadequately covered or badly written. (See Article Rescue Squadron.) But don't blame OrangeMike; you should have seen this article a week ago, it was in poor shape! A companion article about Maney's wife, written at the same time by the same person, was deleted and deservedly so. --MelanieN (talk) 17:01, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid I get annoyed by unnecessary deletions and I'd just come straight from his nomination of R. Longworth which could very easily have been sorted out without the need for all the work you put in here. It's so much more effective simply to improve an article, instead of throwing away someone else's hard work, clumsy as it may be (and it isn't always), and using up the energy of other people diverted from efforts elsewhere.  I should keep away from here as my cage gets rattled too much, but sometimes you get directed to really interesting subjects. Opbeith (talk) 17:18, 13 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep on the basis of his influence on his city, and   on the railroad work also--either would be sufficient.    DGG ( talk ) 00:42, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. MelanieN's work makes this one easy. Notability has clearly been established. Wine Guy  ~Talk  02:22, 14 February 2010 (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.