Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jim Bartels

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 Nominator withdraws AFD as Snowball and closes discussion per WP:CLOSEAFD.--Mark Miller (talk) 02:22, 1 July 2014 (UTC)}}[reply]

Jim Bartels

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

I don't believe this subject has significant coverage. I believe the reliable sources are very limited and just from the initial arguments made, seems to be almost all newspaper coverage and does not pass the criteria for multiple sources. The last part of this I believe is also a concern that there may be a presumption of notability due to what one believes to be significant coverage in one particular medium, while there may be a presumption of notability it is not guaranteed.

After a review of the links left by the editor to attempt to demonstrate notability, I am convinced this does not pass criteria. Many of the links are doubles of the same story and only one is detailed about the subject himself. The Google book search only resulted in a single page on my browser and the scholar search only showed three results. I believe this article fails notability for a stand alone and should have the relevant content merged to the Iolani Palace article and Washington Place article.

Support a merge and delete for the above stated reasons.--Mark Miller (talk) 08:55, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose – Message to other editors: See my arguments on Talk:Jim Bartels. Thanks!--KAVEBEAR (talk) 09:19, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

not sure; slightly leaning towards keep, but maybe merge would be better

If this article is deleted on these grounds, the one on Jack Agnew definitely should get the ax. Although I'm not keen on obitu-articles and the like, at least this guy actually, documented-ly did the things stated. --Piledhigheranddeeper (talk) 12:54, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not a fair comparison as that figure you linked was notable enough to have inspired a movie about him and others. Mr. Bartels did the things stated, but are they accomplishments notable for a stand alone?--Mark Miller (talk) 18:48, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Reliable sources have been found, it was on the front page today (June 30), he's notable enough. Busy Moose (talk) 13:01, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I wondered if that would be brought up, and technically that should not have been accepted for DYK as there was a copyright issue still there after it passed. See the article history. The sources that were found can be distilled down to two events, his death and the throne incident that seems to be the most noteworthy event and seems to be based on criticism of a living person and could violate BLP policy.--Mark Miller (talk) 18:48, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Adequately sourced and seems to have easily done enough to be notable. If this person fails notability there must be hundreds, if not thousands, of others who would fail more positively. PRL42 (talk) 15:58, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hawaii-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:40, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:40, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:40, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I don't like this article, either, but multiple articles in The Honolulu Advertiser seems to meet WP:GNG. Chris Troutman (talk) 17:32, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As I stated, the criteria speaks directly to the situation of multiple sources from one medium like newspapers where the stories are repeated and this is the case here. Really, only two events are represented in those sources as stated above. This may well be borderline as Piledhigheranddeeper mentions so it may well go either way, but I feel that the article was treating the subjects unfairly and the article was not neutral. I am surprised that passed so easily but I think the novelty of what was being noted over shadowed the more POV direction the article had originally taken. Not sure if this can be expanded much and if AFD fails I can't help but think this article will likely be nominated again by someone else in the future.--Mark Miller (talk) 18:48, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The sources are sufficient to establish his significance in the discipline of Hawaiian history. --Arxiloxos (talk) 23:23, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Withdraw AFD nomination as Snowball. KAVEBEAR. Could Fram or another admin, please close. Thanks for the discussion.--Mark Miller (talk) 02:12, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:CLOSEAFD the nominator can withdraw and close the AFD. Cool.--Mark Miller (talk) 02:22, 1 July 2014 (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.