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)[reply]

Adam Beattie

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(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)[reply]

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 WP:GNG Velella ^{Velella Talk} 17:46, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. No evidence of anything that would pass WP:ANYBIO. ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 18:29, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:00, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:00, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:02, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:SOLDIER and WP:GNG. Mztourist (talk) 03:05, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
Keep Fails WP:SOLDIER but passes WP:POLITICIAN: Politicians and judges who have held international, national, or (for countries with federal or similar systems of government) state/province–wide office, or have been members of legislative bodies at those levels as a member of the Michigan state senate. Although the article is unsourced, due diligence shows that it is indeed correct, and that there is enough material to pass WP:GNG. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:04, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
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 WP:POLITICIAN. Phil Bridger (talk) 15:29, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The subject passes WP:POLITICIAN - that's enough to keep the article.Less Unless (talk) 16:13, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment better sourcing is needed of the claimed notability under WP:POLITICIAN as he still lacks SIGCOV in multiple RS.Mztourist (talk) 03:49, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]

What does it say? Mztourist (talk) 11:58, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting for more discussion on the WP:POLITICIAN criteria.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 01:51, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Borderline keep US state Senators are considered notable, although we don't know whether he did something or just sat. Staszek Lem (talk) 03:38, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Passes WP:NPOL. Here's freely available RS online verification, which also gives a brief bio of him. The WP:SOLDIER failure doesn't matter, as he's notable for other things. Hog Farm _Bacon 22:12, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As WP:BIO states under Additional Criteria: "People are likely to be notable if they meet any of the following standards. Failure to meet these criteria is not conclusive proof that a subject should not be included; conversely, meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included." Passing WP:POL is not conclusive. Mztourist (talk) 07:38, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[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.