Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/William Nutt


 * 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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:18, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

William Nutt

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Extremely unnotable person fails WP:BIO by a country mile. This person died in 1909, and what are his markers of notability? I read the whole thing so that you don't have to, and take my word for it. This is it:
 * He was a state senator.
 * He was a colonel in the army.
 * He had a somewhat interesting life, being a free soiler in Kansas and a soldier in the Civil War.
 * He was a solid citizen, serving on town committees, having a solid and respectable law practice, being a public speaker, serving on various committees for the state Republican party, that sort of thing. Mason. Member of the GAR. Chairman of local bank. Sons of Temperance. Board of Selectmen. I'm sure he was extremely respectable.

That is is. I kept expecting to find something he had done that millions of other solid, respectable citizens with nice careers hadn't done, but there's nothing there. I would say the highest marker of notability for this person is "Was a Massachusetts state senator in 1871-72". If he had pushed through a notable law or something, fine. But he didn't.

We don't have articles on people whose highest notability was being a state senator, and the fact that is guy is a hundred years dead only makes it worse. Slam-dunk delete. Herostratus (talk) 14:44, 14 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep and cleanup. State senator is notable enough for me, and an obituary of that size is a reliable source. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 16:22, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Are you seriously saying that we should have articles on state senators? You understand that this is not a United State Senator, it is a person who served in a state legislature. For parts of two years. In the 19th Century. And as far as cleanup: the article is a data dump and needs a massive labor-intensive cleanup and paring down. No one is likely ever going to do this for an obscure state senator from 1871. Herostratus (talk) 16:41, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete Does not meet current standards of notability, and by extension those approriate to historical characters. There would be many people in 1909 newspaper obituaries about whom similar things might have been said, even if not necessarily in Massachusetts. AJHingston (talk) 21:02, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I am sure there are many people whom "similar things might have been said", and it is possible that they deserve, or don't deserve, a biography in Wikipedia. That is more a comment on the incompleteness of Wikipedia and the bias towards WP:recentism than on Nutt. We are here to discuss Nutt and Wikipedia states: "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article". We have two full page biographies of him and I can see a third on Civil War people behind a paywall. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 22:48, 14 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep The subject meets #1 of WP:POLITICIAN as a State Senator. The fact that he lived in the 19th century is irrelevant. --CutOffTies (talk) 21:20, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Errrm well. It is true that WP:POLITICIAN. However, he doesn't the meet the primary criteria at WP:GNG or WP:BIO, multiple third-party refs. Then, allowing that says "People are generally notable if they meet any of the following standards" but also says "Meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included" we have WP:POLITICIAN: "Former members of a national, state or provincial legislature" - but with a footnote for that precise sentence, which says "This is a secondary criterion. People who satisfy this criterion will almost always satisfy the primary criterion. Biographers and historians will usually have already written about the past and present holders of major political offices. However, this criterion ensures that our coverage of major political offices, incorporating all of the present and past holders of that office, will be complete regardless." So on one level the people writing WP:POLITICIAN don't really envision a case where a person is a member of a state legislature but doesn't have any actual coverage, but on the other hand they are saying "One of the goals of Wikipedia is to eventually have an article on anyone who was ever a member of a state legislature". Hmmm, I had not seen that.
 * Well, its a good point. I'm not sure I agree with that, or why state legislators in particular should be singled out, but it does say that. It's a guideline and I don't know how carefully it was considered, so I'm going to say that since the person doesn't meet WP:GNG to begin with I still think the article should go. But it's a good point. Herostratus (talk) 23:22, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
 * WP:GNG states: "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article". Exactly how does he not fit that? Instead of just saying he doesn't meet GNG, try and express an exact requirement of GNG that is not met and quote it the exact rule. All your doing is giving a vague wave to GNG without quoting it. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 23:28, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
 * It does go to what we intend by notability. We struggle with contemporary politicians, because without clear rules Wikipedia would be subject to articles from those who want to enhance their own or a favoured candidate's profile and ensuring NPOV becomes almost impossible. But I wonder if everyone realises just how wide those criteria now are. For example, if we apply the WP:POLITICIAN rules to England as an example at the end of the 19th century then we can include all members of the London County Council, mayors of larger local authorities (an office held for a year), probably city aldermen, etc etc. Remember that the population of some cities in England was greater than some US states. And then there are vast numbers of people of equal standing on county councils and larger borough councils and all sorts of other posts, including colonial. Most will have had an effusive obituary, and I would prefer to have some other, objective, measure of notability than holding office locally. Otherwise it becomes very difficult to hold the line against other people who were at least of equal standing in their community at the time but we would also want to challenge for notability. Just having things written about them during life cannot be sufficient without looking at content as well as context.  Maybe Wikipedia is too fussy about notability? AJHingston (talk) 00:57, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Vermont-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:22, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:22, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:23, 15 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep We have consensus on a notability guideline for politicians which says that state legislators are presumed to be notable. Those who disagree with this guideline are free to try to change the consensus, but until then, the consensus stands and should guide this debate.  Sources are presumed to exist for such individuals.  For example, a search of the paper archives of newspapers published in his district at the time he served would almost certainly have in depth coverage of him.  Local historical societies may have archives of reliable sources describing him.  Sources need not be readily available online, or produced at this time.  The article has several sources now, and other sources almost certainly could be found.  There is no reason to delete this article. Cullen328 (talk) 01:54, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:26, 15 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep. The subject meets the criteria set at WP:POLITICIAN. Even if there were no consensus as to whether state senators are sufficiently notable, the subject still passes WP:GNG by receiving significant coverage in independent reliable sources. (Disclosure: I was made aware of this Afd through the nominator's unofficial Rfc at Wikipedia talk:Notability (people).) Location (talk) 03:58, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep: Ahem. WP:BIO states "People are generally notable if they meet any of the following standards."  WP:POLITICIAN, below, gives "Politicians and judges who have held international, national or sub-national (statewide/provincewide) office, and members or former members of a national, state or provincial legislature" as one of those standards.  Yes, indeed, Herostratus, we are seriously saying that articles on state senators pass muster.  And far from this "not meeting current standards of notability," as another editor alleges, this has been part of the consensus-accepted notability criteria for several years now.  Whether Wikipedia is being "too fussy" about notability is a debatable point, but AfD is an unacceptable stalking horse for making that argument.  Hit up Notability (people)'s talk page, gain consensus for your POV, then we'll talk.   Ravenswing  05:55, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep - Nomination fails what should be The First Rule of AfD Challenges — "Use Common Sense." Sufficient career achievement to merit encyclopedic biography. A beautifully-done piece, may I add... Carrite (talk) 16:33, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep I have started several articles involving Wisconsin State Legislators and I feel state legislators meet current standards of notability-Thank you-RFD (talk) 18:04, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment If we can only get five facts about a person like in Political Graveyard we can always combine them in a list as they do. But there will always be ones with full page biographies. Nutt is just as notable for his banking career as his state legislator membership in 1901. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 19:19, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. All state senators are notable, per WP:POLITICIAN. That's how we've done things for years; browse around the State Senate articles, and you will find a lot of blue links. The fact that it was in the 19th rather than the 21st century is irrelevant towards notability, because notability is not time-bound. If anyone disagrees with the inclusion standards, centralized discussion on the policy page is the best way to address that, rather than randomly nominating one of our thousands of equally notable state legislator articles. -LtNOWIS (talk) 15:24, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep State senators are notable, and notability is not temporary. The fact that not many news articles from 100 years ago are available online does not detract from his obvious notability. I added this reference to the article to establish clearly that he was a state senator. --MelanieN (talk) 03:43, 21 March 2011 (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.