Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Times obituary of Adam Smith


 * 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. JForget 03:28, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Times obituary of Adam Smith

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Article about an obituary is not notable. It has no significant coverage or sources because it is itself a source. It would be a ridiculous precedent to maintain articles of obituaries in an encyclopedia. The text of the document is already at Wikisource --  Wikipedical (talk) 22:13, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete, as nominator. --  Wikipedical (talk) 22:13, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete, a primary source, no secondary sources analyze it. Abductive  (reasoning) 23:11, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete, as a primary source (and I would expect in the public domain) the document itself (if not already) could be posted online and linked to Adam Smith. Northwestgnome (talk) 23:28, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I see it's already in Wikisource. An opinion with the link such as, "Very interesting", to direct readers to it would probably be forgiven or overlooked by WP strictness police. Northwestgnome (talk) 23:30, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Do we soft redirect to Wikisource, as we do to Wiktionary? That might be in order, here. UltraExactZZ Said~ Did 19:32, 28 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete in favor of Wikisource version. UltraExactZZ Said~ Did 19:32, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - as commentary, this is original research. Bearian (talk) 05:14, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - this reads as one person's personal research/reflections on the obituary. As such, it doesn't strike me as encyclopedic or meeting the notability guidelines.  Since the document itself is already on Wikisource, I'd say a deletion here is fair enough.   Cocytus   [»talk«]  20:39, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. For all the good reasons already stated. Niteshift36 (talk) 21:45, 2 January 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.