Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Adam Beattie
 | This discussion was subject to a deletion review on 2020 October 24. For an explanation of the process, see Wikipedia:Deletion review. |
- 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. Although this is another AfD where the weighting of !votes depends on the precise meaning of "presumed notable", the argument that the subject meets
WP:NPOL has not been rebutted, nor has the existence of verifiable information (which may nonetheless fall short of GNG standards). Vanamonde (Talk) 16:49, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
]
Adam Beattie
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- Adam Beattie (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
No real indication of notability. PepperBeast (talk) 17:42, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
- Delete - this appears to be a personal genealogy project started by a SPA. Probably interesting to their family but absolutely zero indication of notability. Fails ]
- Delete per nomination. No evidence of anything that would pass WP:ANYBIO. ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 18:29, 7 October 2020 (UTC)]
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 19:00, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 19:00, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 19:02, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
- Delete fails ]
- Delete falls short of SOLDIER and sources indicate it is well short of meeting the GNG. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:58, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
- Keep Fails ]
- Keep. I have done the due diligence pointed out by Hawkeye, which shouldn't need to be pointed out, and cited a source in the article confirming a pass of Phil Bridger (talk) 15:29, 9 October 2020 (UTC)]
- Keep The subject passes WP:POLITICIAN - that's enough to keep the article.Less Unless (talk) 16:13, 9 October 2020 (UTC)]
- Comment better sourcing is needed of the claimed notability under ]
- What needs to be better than the source that I provided? It is independent and reliable, confirms that the subject was a senator and gives a biographical sketch. Phil Bridger (talk) 06:56, 10 October 2020 (UTC)]
- What needs to be better than the source that I provided? It is independent and reliable, confirms that the subject was a senator and gives a biographical sketch.
WP:POLITICIAN
criteria.Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 01:51, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
- Borderline keep US state Senators are considered notable, although we don't know whether he did something or just sat. talk) 03:38, 14 October 2020 (UTC)]
- Keep - Passes WP:SOLDIER failure doesn't matter, as he's notable for other things. Hog Farm Bacon 22:12, 14 October 2020 (UTC)]
- As ]
- Keep, all members of state legislatures are considered to be notable by default per WP:NPOL. Devonian Wombat (talk) 00:17, 16 October 2020 (UTC)]
- Weak keep borderline pass of WP:NPOL as it's written, there's enough information to write a verifiable stub. (I originally closed this as keep, but have self-reverted and !voted instead upon a request on my talk page). Cheers, Eddie891 Talk Work 15:45, 21 October 2020 (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.