Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Charles E. Sexey

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 no consensus. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 03:55, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Charles E. Sexey

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

He was a successful local businessman, but does he rise to notability? I don't think he's Sexey enough. Clarityfiend (talk) 03:55, 21 August 2010 (UTC) Clarityfiend (talk) 03:55, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. While this is an honorable presentation of an individual's life, notability is neither indicated nor established through the content or sources provided. It appears that available sources are genealogical forums fleshing out the ancestry and descendancy of members of the subject's family. Cindamuse (talk) 05:42, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:05, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:35, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This is an excellent example of a time when it is best to Apply Common Sense — that is, in Wikipedia jargon, to Ignore All Rules. This is a fine little historical biography. Deleting it would needlessly destroy information and would accomplish nothing of value. Carrite (talk) 01:45, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Tend to agree with Carrite - what good would deleting it do? It's not promotional in any way, and is the kind of nugget that adds a lot of unquantifiable value to Wikipedia. ///—Brichcja/// 07:42, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
comment. As Sexey as Sexey could be. Even if Oliphant's story of runaway kids is a legend, it already made it into mainsteram literature. However, I am concerned with OR and copyright - this reads like something lifted from a heritage club website. East of Borschov 12:16, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think there is a copyright issue here. I just Google searched 5 unique phrases in the article and got clean returns to the WP article or pages derived from the WP article (AskJeeves, etc.). The issue here is one of verifiability — it's not footnoted right. Is that reason enough to kill it? Not a BLP, so technically no. Carrite (talk) 17:51, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Apart from what is said above, it records early pakeha history of New Zealand when there weren't many Europeans around, and nothing much was recorded. For that reason alone, it's worth keeping.
comment - it would appear that on 8 April 2007 this article was deleted once before, as per this entry. Looking at the article's history, it was recreated the following day as 'Charles E Sexey' (i.e. without the full stop after the middle initial) and moved in 2008 to its current (and previous) article name. Schwede 66 19:59, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per above comment, content looks to be copied from previously deleted article. No additional sources and only minor additional content which adds nothing to justify the article. Seems like an attempt to get around a deletion of an insufficiently notable individual. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 02:41, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ Original research (reference citations such as "US Census for 1860 and 1870 listing Charles Sexey" and "Marysville Library for newspaper index references to Charles Sexey"). Non-neutral ("What is tragic about this (estate) judgement is that those who were entitled to receive the money, Charles Sexey’s four children in New Zealand, never received a penny of their father’s wealth or ever derived any benefit from it."). Although the subject is claimed to be an important citizen of Marysville, California, he is not mentioned in the article about Marysville. It's not a hoax - there are a few online sources [1] [2] that give him a bare mention in connection with Marysville - but overall his significance is not established. --MelanieN (talk) 14:50, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Changing my mind to Weak keep. I decided that my "original research" comment is mistaken. The author consulting references like the census and the library, is not really original research; it is establishing sources. This guy may not have been the most important citizen any of the places he lived, but he left a trail of achievement that is not trivial. --MelanieN (talk) 16:58, 3 September 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.