413:, 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 Knowledge (XXG) is too fussy about notability?
358:: "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
586:
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
Knowledge (XXG) 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.
512:
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.
665:. 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. -
247:? 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.
683:
585:
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
202:
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
294:
than on Nutt. We are here to discuss Nutt and
Knowledge (XXG) 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
511:
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
389:
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
207:
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
404:
It does go to what we intend by notability. We struggle with contemporary politicians, because without clear rules
Knowledge (XXG) 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
370:
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
266:
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.
289:
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
Knowledge (XXG). That is more a comment on the incompleteness of Knowledge (XXG) and the bias towards
354:, 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
366:
have any actual coverage, but on the other hand they are saying "One of the goals of
Knowledge (XXG) is to eventually have an article on anyone who was ever a member of a state legislature". Hmmm, I had not seen
154:
640:
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. --
682:
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
602:- 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...
458:
530:
481:
115:
211:
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.
189:
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:
435:
148:
564:
by receiving significant coverage in independent reliable sources. (Disclosure: I was made aware of this Afd through the nominator's unofficial Rfc at
645:
395:
300:
234:
619:
I have started several articles involving
Wisconsin State Legislators and I feel state legislators meet current standards of notability-Thank you-
565:
641:
391:
296:
230:
17:
390:
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. --
88:
83:
92:
169:
662:
75:
136:
710:
36:
560:. Even if there were no consensus as to whether state senators are sufficiently notable, the subject still passes
709:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
130:
658:
557:
508:
406:
359:
355:
343:
321:
229:
and cleanup. State senator is notable enough for me, and an obituary of that size is a reliable source. --
291:
126:
695:
674:
649:
628:
611:
594:
577:
545:
521:
496:
473:
450:
422:
410:
399:
384:
380:
333:
304:
276:
256:
252:
238:
220:
216:
57:
53:
661:. That's how we've done things for years; browse around the State Senate articles, and you will find
418:
409:
rules to
England as an example at the end of the 19th century then we can include all members of the
329:
272:
176:
637:
517:
162:
691:
573:
199:
He had a somewhat interesting life, being a free soiler in Kansas and a soldier in the Civil War.
670:
607:
541:
492:
469:
446:
79:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
376:
248:
212:
49:
561:
372:
351:
347:
186:
587:
414:
325:
268:
142:
513:
687:
624:
569:
405:
everyone realises just how wide those criteria now are. For example, if we apply the
666:
603:
537:
488:
465:
442:
362:
don't really envision a case where a person is a member of a state legislature but
71:
63:
109:
324:
as a State Senator. The fact that he lived in the 19th century is irrelevant. --
375:
to begin with I still think the article should go. But it's a good point.
620:
686:
to the article to establish clearly that he was a state senator. --
703:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
243:
Are you seriously saying that we should have articles on
208:
through a notable law or something, fine. But he didn't.
346:. However, he doesn't the meet the primary criteria at
105:
101:
97:
161:
636:
If we can only get five facts about a person like in
295:
see a third on Civil War people behind a paywall. --
459:
list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions
175:
531:list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions
39:). No further edits should be made to this page.
713:). No further edits should be made to this page.
482:list of Politicians-related deletion discussions
8:
529:Note: This debate has been included in the
480:Note: This debate has been included in the
457:Note: This debate has been included in the
436:list of Vermont-related deletion discussions
434:Note: This debate has been included in the
528:
479:
456:
433:
566:Knowledge (XXG) talk:Notability (people)
556:. The subject meets the criteria set at
657:. All state senators are notable, per
18:Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion
7:
509:notability guideline for politicians
24:
185:Extremely unnotable person fails
642:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- )
392:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- )
297:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- )
231:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- )
1:
203:he was extremely respectable.
196:He was a colonel in the army.
342:Errrm well. It is true that
730:
696:03:43, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
675:15:24, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
650:19:19, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
629:18:04, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
612:16:33, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
595:05:55, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
578:03:58, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
546:02:26, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
522:01:54, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
497:01:23, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
474:01:22, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
451:01:22, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
423:00:57, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
400:23:28, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
385:23:22, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
334:21:20, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
305:22:48, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
277:21:02, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
257:16:41, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
239:16:22, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
221:14:44, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
58:02:18, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
706:Please do not modify it.
320:The subject meets #1 of
32:Please do not modify it.
507:We have consensus on a
193:He was a state senator.
411:London County Council
663:a lot of blue links
638:Political Graveyard
44:The result was
548:
534:
499:
485:
476:
462:
453:
439:
721:
708:
591:
535:
486:
463:
440:
180:
179:
165:
113:
95:
34:
729:
728:
724:
723:
722:
720:
719:
718:
717:
711:deletion review
704:
589:
122:
86:
70:
67:
37:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
727:
725:
716:
715:
699:
698:
677:
652:
631:
614:
597:
580:
550:
549:
525:
524:
501:
500:
477:
454:
431:
430:
429:
428:
427:
426:
425:
368:
337:
336:
314:
313:
312:
311:
310:
309:
308:
307:
280:
279:
261:
260:
259:
245:state senators
205:
204:
200:
197:
194:
183:
182:
119:
66:
61:
42:
41:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
726:
714:
712:
707:
701:
700:
697:
693:
689:
685:
681:
678:
676:
672:
668:
664:
660:
659:WP:POLITICIAN
656:
653:
651:
647:
643:
639:
635:
632:
630:
626:
622:
618:
615:
613:
609:
605:
601:
598:
596:
593:
592:
584:
581:
579:
575:
571:
567:
563:
559:
558:WP:POLITICIAN
555:
552:
551:
547:
543:
539:
532:
527:
526:
523:
519:
515:
510:
506:
503:
502:
498:
494:
490:
483:
478:
475:
471:
467:
460:
455:
452:
448:
444:
437:
432:
424:
420:
416:
412:
408:
407:WP:POLITICIAN
403:
402:
401:
397:
393:
388:
387:
386:
382:
378:
374:
369:
365:
361:
360:WP:POLITICIAN
357:
356:WP:POLITICIAN
353:
349:
345:
344:WP:POLITICIAN
341:
340:
339:
338:
335:
331:
327:
323:
322:WP:POLITICIAN
319:
316:
315:
306:
302:
298:
293:
288:
287:
286:
285:
284:
283:
282:
281:
278:
274:
270:
265:
262:
258:
254:
250:
246:
242:
241:
240:
236:
232:
228:
225:
224:
223:
222:
218:
214:
209:
201:
198:
195:
192:
191:
190:
188:
178:
174:
171:
168:
164:
160:
156:
153:
150:
147:
144:
141:
138:
135:
132:
128:
125:
124:Find sources:
120:
117:
111:
107:
103:
99:
94:
90:
85:
81:
77:
73:
69:
68:
65:
62:
60:
59:
55:
51:
47:
40:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
705:
702:
679:
654:
633:
616:
599:
588:
582:
553:
504:
363:
317:
292:WP:recentism
263:
244:
226:
210:
206:
184:
172:
166:
158:
151:
145:
139:
133:
123:
72:William Nutt
64:William Nutt
45:
43:
31:
28:
590:Ravenswing
377:Herostratus
249:Herostratus
213:Herostratus
149:free images
50:Ron Ritzman
415:AJHingston
326:CutOffTies
269:AJHingston
684:reference
538:• Gene93k
514:Cullen328
489:• Gene93k
466:• Gene93k
443:• Gene93k
688:MelanieN
570:Location
116:View log
667:LtNOWIS
634:Comment
604:Carrite
364:doesn't
155:WP refs
143:scholar
89:protect
84:history
562:WP:GNG
373:WP:GNG
352:WP:BIO
348:WP:GNG
264:Delete
187:WP:BIO
127:Google
93:delete
583:Keep:
367:that.
170:JSTOR
131:books
110:views
102:watch
98:links
16:<
692:talk
680:Keep
671:talk
655:Keep
646:talk
625:talk
617:Keep
608:talk
600:Keep
574:talk
554:Keep
542:talk
518:talk
505:Keep
493:talk
470:talk
447:talk
419:talk
396:talk
381:talk
330:talk
318:Keep
301:talk
273:talk
253:talk
235:talk
227:Keep
217:talk
163:FENS
137:news
106:logs
80:talk
76:edit
54:talk
46:keep
621:RFD
568:.)
536:--
487:--
464:--
441:--
350:or
177:TWL
114:– (
694:)
673:)
648:)
627:)
610:)
576:)
544:)
533:.
520:)
495:)
484:.
472:)
461:.
449:)
438:.
421:)
398:)
383:)
332:)
303:)
275:)
255:)
237:)
219:)
157:)
108:|
104:|
100:|
96:|
91:|
87:|
82:|
78:|
56:)
48:.
690:(
669:(
644:(
623:(
606:(
572:(
540:(
516:(
491:(
468:(
445:(
417:(
394:(
379:(
328:(
299:(
271:(
251:(
233:(
215:(
181:)
173:·
167:·
159:·
152:·
146:·
140:·
134:·
129:(
121:(
118:)
112:)
74:(
52:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.