339:. The problem here is that it was the assassination of Lincoln by the famous actor in his own right, John Wilkes Booth who saw himself as a combatant a few days after the close of the Civil War that effected the nation, AND the life of an emerging theatre tradition in America, which was put right by the assassin's brother, equally famous actor Edwin Booth with his actors club in New York. Members of this family were imprisoned at the time, and remained "infamous" for years. Individual family members could be in categories as diverse as "famous assassins" (John Wilkes), or "famous theatre dynasties" (Junius Brutus, Edwin), but that would be a black mark against one or the other. This article is my humble attempt to pull it together showing the dynamics and interactions between ALL the members of this family. And their much neglected historic family home Tudor Hall has just opened as a museum near Baltimore, which I've visited, where I'm sure they're trying to do the same thing. I'm the first to admit that the article needs to be fleshed out with references and external links, just a beginning, I was hoping that others might get involved. JohnClarknew 18:54, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
618:. For example, the guilt he must have felt abandoning his only son and his wife, what was the date? Later, he brought his father over to live with them, his father had abandoned his wife too. One of his daughters stayed home, a spinster, to take care of her mother. Then there were the deaths of 4 of his small children to smallpox and a local epidemic of cholera, could that have contributed to his alcoholism and dementia? He was a political radical, did his son John Wilkes feel compelled somehow to continue his father's radicalism after his father died, and murder our most famous President, let's see, that was thirteen years later? And what was the time frame after that when his brother was able to reverse society's condemnation of the family name and the profession of acting with his Players club? If there's precedent you want, there are other families which haven't given rise to these challenges; for example, if, as Dhartung says, Knowledge is not a genealogy site, why then the genealogically presented
662:. Dhartung has rewritten the page and deleted what he doesn't like, and he has a right to do this. But notice he has already come up with more links to the family name, WHICH IS WORKING BACKWARDS! If we can't lead off with the family name, we will have to provide more tidbits of information on each individual member's page, and leave it to the reader to connect the dots. Knowledge is superior to other encyclopedias precisely because it is prepared to occasionally be a little provocative with unexpected accurate information in worthy situations, thus going a little further in aiding the student or researcher or writer in gaining a better understanding of the motivations of the members' actions. I can think of no other family with such built-in raging conflicts, finally resting in peace into eternity in a family gravesite, all of which makes them a very exciting subject. Please, let them be, don't cause them more rejection. JohnClarknew 06:42, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
516:. I think I'm mostly in agreement with Bwithh's comment above: there aren't enough sources and citations to show that more than a couple of members of the family are notable. There's a reasonable chance those sources might exist, but as the article stands right now it's just a geneological listing of the questionably notable family of a definitely notable person, which as the original prod stated is
673:
an article or a biography. It isn't appropriate here. Please also note that impassioned speeches are not what is needed in an
Articles for Deletion debate; instead, you should be able to point to Knowledge policy and how it is or is not satisfied. I'm glad you are excited by the subject, but you have to understand that what you write must fit here. --
731:
to policy and reasonably fits within guidelines. Other articles that you cite could well be themeselves violations of either and their existence is not an argument that our policies are inconsistent. Please don't accuse me of having a double standard, especially since you have me on the wrong side of the fence. --
613:
Our 5 days will soon be up. I want mainly to defend the title of the page, to retain "Booth family". There are some families, very few in fact, whose collective deeds are so unique and notable, that one wants to know more as an aid in understanding them. That's where genealogy becomes important. When
672:
JohnClarknew, you have to understand what
Knowledge is and is not. We are an encyclopedia. We are not a genealogical site, nor a place for family histories, nor of emotive narratives about children who died of cholera. What you seem to want is a psychological portrait of the family, which is fine in
450:
Thank you. I have already tried to clean it up a bit. I've deleted reference to the family pre Junius as not necessary. This family is not generational like the
Redgraves, so does not qualify as a dynasty, and therefore a genealogical layout doesn't help. It is, simply, the story of a remarkable and
730:
As I have stated above, we have developed guidelines (which are strong recommendations) and policies (which are firm rules). In AFD discussions arguing by example is counterproductive, because no other article is really under discussion. The question at hand is whether the existing article conforms
399:
background is permissible but the point of the page should not be obscure silversmiths and they certainly should not be redlinked. As it is this is a rambling narrative that might go well in a family history but fails the encyclopedic test. Given that there are at least four notable members of this
767:
Usually admins close AfDs after a week. Normal users can occasionally close them when it's pretty much open-and-shut keep, but we had enough discussion and changed minds going here I don't think that applies. I'd still say it's likely a keep consensus, so we might as well just treat it as such and
549:
is exactly the kind of edit I was talking about. :) The article now focuses on notable members and what makes them notable instead of the family tree, and includes a citation of the Booth-Blair relationship. It could use some more citations I think, maybe a link about the family in general (For an
424:
There, you see, I did not know that Blair is married to the daughter of a Booth descendant. And there's no way I could know, without a notable "family page", which holds all the keys to such links. Also, to continue this discussion, there are similarities to a still living family which I happen to
693:
Dhartung, having studied again several articles on what
Knowledge is and is not, I fail to conclude that it is "not a genealogical site" or "a place for family histories". To proclaim "We are an encyclopedia" states the obvious, and is not enlightening. I believe that, judging from what I read,
563:
I do think an encyclopedia should be factually correct. John Wilkes was not in the play. Also, the family was treated as an entity, and was punished, not just the notables. I don't think it was a tree at all. Any other voices out there? Join in. Two generations don't make a tree. Maybe a bush.
454:
I've cleaned up the article, stripping out all of the extraneous information such as the siblings who died young. Some of this information could be merged into the Junius article, but most of it is of no value in an encyclopedia. The article now wikilinks the important members and shows how the
479:
sources can be given to show that there other family members were high profile collectively from the arrests that were said to have happened, I'd probably vote keep though. Article as is needs lots of cleanup and is focussed on genealogy rather than significance of family
173:
John Wilkes Booth may be the most notable now, but his father and brother were notable in their day, so that the least, it helps to have a disambig page. That said, this page does need to be cleaned up, and it is an orphan, so I'd say merge and delete.
724:
JohnClarknew, you seem to be under the belief that I have argued for deletion of the article. I have not. I argued that it should be kept but rewritten under
Knowledge policy. It's hard to argue with someone who appears not to be reading what you
567:
So he was not, JohnClarknew. He had access because he knew the owner of the theatre. Sorry about that! But as noted above
Knowledge is not a genealogy site, and I don't see justification for adding non-notable family members to this article. The
710:. You have already rewritten the article (with an error which I had to correct) into the content which you feel is more appropriate. Now you've changed your mind, you want to delete the article altogether. I think you are wrong.
152:
Junius Brutus Booth and Edwin Booth also have
Knowledge articles, so I'm not sure where the merge is most appropriate. The content is worthwhile and encyclopedic; this way of parsing it is not optimal. It also sorely needs
694:
Knowledge policy is not fixed, and there are no absolutes, but it is designed to bring information to many levels of its readership in the best and clearest way, and I believe that to give the Booths an article entitled
572:
of Junius is something that belongs in that man's article. This is also not an article about the assassination, and insofar as any non-notable members were punished, that may fit better in the John Wilkes Booth article.
529:
John Wilkes and Edwin are both major notable persons. Edwin was already one of the most famous actors in
America before the assassination, so it isn't just that we know him because of his brother. --
222:
T. Rex is correct. For GFDL purposes, if the content is merged, we must maintain the article's attribution history -- this is usually accomplished via redirect; "merge and delete" is impermissible.
698:, unquestionably a noteworthy family, will serve as a SUMMARIZING ARTICLE which best leads the reader to whichever sections they wish to study further. You do not address the question why
400:
family, I think a genealogical page is appropriate instead of maintaining all these connections on the individual articles. Also related to the
American Booths are Brits
475:
some info with Wilkes/Junius articles. There are only two members of the family presented in context of current article who are encyclopedically notable.
622:? He says Knowledge is not for non-notables, then why was Irish immigrant not notable founder P.J. Kennedy important to the development of the
520:
what
Knowledge is for. If notability citations for a couple other family members can be provided, I would definitely change my opinion. --
492:
you count two, I count three plus two spouses, all of whom already have Knowledge articles. I think that's sufficient for a family page. --
614:
investigating the conditions prevailing in the development of this family at different stages, the inclusion of dates becomes almost a
451:
tragical theatre family, its members giving people lots to think about, and explore further. JohnClarknew 00:15, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
309:
I might reconsider if the article gets a complete rewrite during the AfD period to focus on the most famous members of the family. --
437:, well-known family. If this were 1860 instead of 2006, there would not even be a question about the notability of this family.
647:
17:
184:
213:
I'm afraid I don't understand your point. Sorry, but citing sources like that is not a good way to explain things.
714:
should exist as an entry page, and does conform to the site's standards. JohnClarknew 13:59, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
785:
336:
36:
361:
784:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
194:
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
232:
214:
175:
284:
129:
69:
772:
739:
681:
607:
581:
558:
537:
524:
500:
484:
463:
445:
419:
387:
380:
325:
313:
298:
235:
226:
217:
202:
178:
163:
143:
52:
49:
604:
706:
does not, suggesting you have a double standard. This is a debate over whether to keep the article
322:
310:
188:
554:), but I'm much more convinced this article is encyclopedic, or at least very close to it now. --
736:
699:
678:
635:
631:
578:
534:
497:
460:
416:
756:
OK. 'Nuff said. Do we have a consensus? Who decides? JohnClarknew 02:31, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
350:
255:
100:
96:
80:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
627:
368:
354:
769:
555:
521:
426:
409:
623:
65:
732:
674:
643:
639:
600:
574:
530:
517:
493:
456:
442:
412:
401:
76:
711:
707:
703:
695:
659:
651:
405:
155:
92:
58:
768:
let the admins handle all the rubber stamping when they catch up the backlog. --
619:
481:
88:
223:
160:
551:
596:
438:
231:
Then merge and redirect, or if you want, disambig. Doesn't bother me.
429:
and they rate their own page. JohnClarknew 21:52, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
254:
is already a disambiguation page with links to the notable Booths. --
321:. The article did get a complete rewrite and now is in good shape. --
251:
778:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
335:(author's comment) Perhaps this subject would sit easier in the
95:
problems. Another user had endorsed the prod and left a comment
395:
but only if cleaned up to focus on the notable members. A
546:
513:
550:
idea of what I mean, I like the second paragraph of
39:). No further edits should be made to this page.
788:). No further edits should be made to this page.
630:site not deleted? Others to compare might be
512:(vote changed, see below) I was the user who
72:. My original reasoning behind the prod was:
8:
64:The creator of this article responded to my
564:JohnClarknew 17:07, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
307:the article based on the current content.
77:Knowledge is not for genealogical entries
183:You can't merge and delete. It violate
654:. So, again, I urge the retention of
83:is notable, his entire family is not.
7:
455:brothers and in-laws are related. --
159:but they should be easy to locate.
24:
638:(scores of non notables listed),
349:information could be merged with
648:Pierre Samuel du Pont de Nemours
552:this National Park Service page
18:Knowledge:Articles for deletion
1:
773:08:48, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
740:20:43, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
682:01:55, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
608:04:31, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
582:22:30, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
559:10:09, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
538:08:50, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
525:07:27, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
501:08:50, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
485:01:17, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
464:08:47, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
446:22:07, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
420:19:20, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
388:19:07, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
326:14:37, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
314:18:04, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
299:15:54, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
236:22:11, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
227:19:21, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
218:16:40, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
203:16:01, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
179:15:25, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
164:14:54, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
144:14:42, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
53:11:14, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
337:Music and the Arts families
805:
658:the title of the subject
781:Please do not modify it.
626:? And why was the messy
32:Please do not modify it.
425:know a bit about, the
545:As a matter of fact,
345:Looks like at least
700:The Midgley Family
636:Rockefeller family
632:The Midgley Family
87:There may also be
514:endorsed the prod
351:John Wilkes Booth
81:John Wilkes Booth
796:
783:
628:Barrymore family
385:
379:
373:
366:
359:
296:
293:
290:
287:
283:
279:
276:
273:
270:
267:
264:
261:
258:
233:FrozenPurpleCube
215:FrozenPurpleCube
199:
191:
176:FrozenPurpleCube
156:reliable sources
141:
138:
135:
132:
128:
124:
121:
118:
115:
112:
109:
106:
103:
34:
804:
803:
799:
798:
797:
795:
794:
793:
792:
786:deletion review
779:
427:Redgrave family
381:
375:
369:
362:
355:
294:
291:
288:
285:
281:
277:
274:
271:
268:
265:
262:
259:
256:
201:
195:
189:
139:
136:
133:
130:
126:
122:
119:
116:
113:
110:
107:
104:
101:
62:
44:The result was
37:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
802:
800:
791:
790:
775:
764:
763:
762:
761:
760:
759:
758:
757:
747:
746:
745:
744:
743:
742:
728:
727:
726:
716:
715:
685:
684:
664:
663:
624:Kennedy family
611:
590:
589:
588:
587:
586:
585:
584:
561:
505:
504:
503:
470:
469:
468:
467:
466:
432:
431:
430:
390:
340:
330:
329:
328:
323:Metropolitan90
311:Metropolitan90
301:
245:
244:
243:
242:
241:
240:
239:
238:
208:
207:
206:
205:
193:
167:
166:
85:
84:
68:at length, on
61:
56:
42:
41:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
801:
789:
787:
782:
776:
774:
771:
766:
765:
755:
754:
753:
752:
751:
750:
749:
748:
741:
738:
734:
729:
723:
720:
719:
718:
717:
713:
709:
705:
701:
697:
692:
689:
688:
687:
686:
683:
680:
676:
671:
668:
667:
666:
665:
661:
657:
653:
649:
645:
644:Dupont family
641:
640:Godrej family
637:
633:
629:
625:
621:
617:
612:
609:
606:
602:
598:
594:
591:
583:
580:
576:
571:
566:
565:
562:
560:
557:
553:
548:
544:
541:
540:
539:
536:
532:
528:
527:
526:
523:
519:
515:
511:
510:
506:
502:
499:
495:
491:
488:
487:
486:
483:
478:
474:
471:
465:
462:
458:
453:
452:
449:
448:
447:
444:
440:
436:
433:
428:
423:
422:
421:
418:
414:
410:
407:
403:
402:Anthony Booth
398:
394:
391:
389:
386:
384:
378:
374:
372:
367:
365:
360:
358:
352:
348:
344:
341:
338:
334:
331:
327:
324:
320:
317:
316:
315:
312:
308:
306:
302:
300:
297:
280:
253:
250:
247:
246:
237:
234:
230:
229:
228:
225:
221:
220:
219:
216:
212:
211:
210:
209:
204:
200:
198:
192:
186:
182:
181:
180:
177:
172:
169:
168:
165:
162:
158:
157:
151:
148:
147:
146:
145:
142:
125:
98:
94:
90:
82:
78:
75:
74:
73:
71:
70:his talk page
67:
60:
57:
55:
54:
51:
47:
40:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
780:
777:
721:
712:Booth Family
708:Booth Family
704:Booth Family
702:belongs and
696:Booth Family
690:
669:
660:Booth family
655:
652:Jauch family
646:(fronted by
616:sine qua non
615:
592:
569:
542:
508:
507:
489:
476:
473:Delete/Merge
472:
434:
406:Cherie Blair
396:
392:
382:
376:
370:
363:
356:
346:
342:
332:
318:
304:
303:
248:
196:
170:
154:
149:
86:
63:
59:Booth family
50:Sam Blanning
45:
43:
31:
28:
620:Bach family
509:Weak Delete
343:Maybe Merge
770:Shadowlynk
603:, above.
556:Shadowlynk
522:Shadowlynk
605:Smeelgova
595:, as per
547:this edit
357:P.B. Pilh
733:Dhartung
675:Dhartung
656:at least
634:(who?),
597:User:Zoe
575:Dhartung
570:children
531:Dhartung
494:Dhartung
457:Dhartung
439:User:Zoe
413:Dhartung
691:Comment
670:Comment
650:), and
490:Comment
249:Comment
601:(talk)
482:Bwithh
443:(talk)
305:Delete
722:Reply
397:brief
252:Booth
224:Xoloz
197:speak
190:T REX
171:Merge
161:Xoloz
150:Merge
99:. --
93:WP:OR
16:<
737:Talk
725:say.
679:Talk
593:Keep
579:Talk
543:Keep
535:Talk
498:Talk
461:Talk
435:Keep
417:Talk
404:and
393:Keep
383:Talk
347:some
333:Keep
319:Keep
185:GFDL
97:here
91:and
89:WP:V
66:prod
48:. --
46:keep
518:not
735:|
677:|
642:,
577:|
573:--
533:|
496:|
477:If
459:|
415:|
411:--
408:.
353:.
275:mo
272:lo
269:So
260:sl
187:.
120:mo
117:lo
114:So
105:sl
79:.
610:.
599:|
441:|
377:/
371:t
364:e
295:k
292:l
289:a
286:t
282:|
278:n
266:y
263:a
257:I
140:k
137:l
134:a
131:t
127:|
123:n
111:y
108:a
102:I
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.