Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Andrew Jackson, Sr.

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 merge to Andrew Jackson. This, or a merger to a possible Family of Andrew Jackson article, seems to be the outcome best reflecting the varied views expressed in this discussion.  Sandstein  07:25, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Jackson, Sr.[edit]

Andrew Jackson, Sr. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Delete no evidence of notability Boleyn (talk) 18:42, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 17:32, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:N. Being the parent of a notable figure does not in and of itself constitute notability, and that appears to be Andrew Jackson Sr.'s one claim to "fame." Perhaps warrants inclusion in article on Andrew Jackson? ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 17:55, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. The coverage in this book, First Fathers, helps to establish notability. – Eastmain (talk) 20:29, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. This article is the subject of an active merger discussion. I don't how splitting the discussion between three places (including Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hugh Jackson (businessman)) helps us to come to a reasonable consensus about how to deal with these articles. I would note that Andrew Jackson already runs to 69K so it is ripe for the creation of some WP:summary style sub-articles. Let's have a discussion about how to organise the information about President Jackson's family in one place rather than have three separate discussions going on (maybe with a Family of Andrew Jackson article). I just checked out the speedy keep guideline and see that it doesn't include articles about which a discussion is already taking place elsewhere. It should do so to avoid us having multiple discussions about the same thing. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:44, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge Actually, Family of Andrew Jackson is a good idea for an article. The man died the same year that (going by the supposition of this article) Andrew Jackson was born-- and what's up with this "Sr." stuff? I'm sorry, the 7th President of the United States wasn't ever called "Andrew Jackson Jr." His mention in a book about fathers of American Presidents doesn't make him historically notable. All that proves is that there is a market for books about every explorable detail of the American presidents, and that the author had to include everyone in such a book. Mandsford (talk) 01:53, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete A mention in a book on an obscure topic does not do much to establish notability. "Family of Andrew Jackson" is a good idea for an article if anyone can produce sources establishing notability: to simply say that it's a good idea is not enough. I am puzzled by Mandsford's logic: Mandsford argues against notability of Andrew Jackson Sr, and yet suggests a merge: surely if he is not notable he should not be included anywhere, whether in his own article or merged. As for the "active merger discussion", not a single contributor to that discussion has supported a merger. A note was added to that discussion saying it had been taken to AfD, and since then no further discussion has taken place there, so the discussion is not taking place at three different places. Anyway, if the subject of the article is not notable it should be deleted, whether or not there is another discussion in place. JamesBWatson (talk) 15:23, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, as bad as I hate to concede that you're right about the merge, you're right that there is nothing to merge to. I'm more puzzled by the statement that "if he is not notable he should not be included anywhere, whether in his own article or merged", and perhaps I'm misunderstanding the meaning. Like you and me and most Wikipedia editors and 99.99999% of all human beings who have ever lived, he's non-notable, but he's not an "unperson" out of 1984. Non-notable only means that he isn't entitled to his own article. He can be included anywhere, in any existing article, that any editor sees fit. I don't know of anybody who would edit an article to remove any mention of things deemed not notable enough. Mandsford (talk) 18:00, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into Andrew Jackson. A more concise version of the material in this stub can fit into the main article just fine. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 00:59, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or Merge Per Ginsengbomb's comments on notability. Not notable enough to warrant own article but considering source meets WP:RS might warrant a section on his son's article.Nefariousski (talk) 02:20, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a cup // ark // 08:04, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Andrew_Jackson,_Sr.&oldid=1137565025"