Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/James D. M. Beebe

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 delete‎. all except for James D. M. Beebe. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:22, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

James D. M. Beebe

[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)

Only claim to notability is length of time he did his job. Per consensus at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/James Howard Van Pelt and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Charles O. Beebe the job itself is not notable. Melcous (talk) 14:24, 30 September 2023 (UTC) I am also nominating the following related pages which make the same claim to notability (i.e. length of service)[reply]

I clicked on two of them, Beebe and Josiah Johnson Sr., and each had extensive front-page obituaries in major newspapers (Johnson in The Sun, which apparently was The New York Times of its time, and Beebe in the Daily Record, which, while not as big, is still a pretty large newspaper in the area) - I don't know if this bundle of 11 is okay. BeanieFan11 (talk) 14:47, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- ~~Nominating over 20 creations of historical articles by a single user in a very short timeframe feels like harassment of that user~~ - I'm really not liking these nominations, especially since all of them are very well-developed and appear to be of historical interest (not necessarily suggesting they're all notable, but, really, 22 nominations for deletion of the hard work of a single editor in the span of around two weeks?). BeanieFan11 (talk) 15:05, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  - Also, the claim to notability doesn't seem to be length of service, but WP:GNG, as the creating user mentions in the creation summary for each page "Creating article for subject that passes WP:GNG per having significant coverage". BeanieFan11 (talk) 15:07, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and New York. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:59, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep Inappropriate bundled nomination. Many of these subjects are clearly notable. Jfire (talk) 15:19, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Suggest doing a procedural keep of both this and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Franklin Fowler, each of which have way too many articles to be evaluated at once – each of varying notability and some near-certainly notable – ~~and seem to be harassment of a single user~~. BeanieFan11 (talk) 15:22, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

BeanieFan11, not sure if you realized but you have !voted K*ep twice in bold and again in non-bold. Please strike through your repeat k*ep !vote, as it is not permissible for an editor to !vote twice. I realize you may not have known that this can affect the outcome is the closer is doing a search-and-count when analyzing the closure. Thank you. Netherzone (talk) 15:57, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It is not harrassment of the creation editor. The first three I looked aren't notable. Articles must be able to be evaluated for notability. scope_creep^Talk 15:31, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As for Beebe, I would say having a full-column long front page feature story in a major newspaper is indicative of notability; I haven't looked at them all, but even if they're not all notable, it still feels wrong to be mass (as in over 20 in two weeks) nominating for deletion the hard work of a single user - it caused immense stress when I had that experience happen to me (and it was half the scale) - it at least should be spaced out. BeanieFan11 (talk) 15:35, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

~~What about Theophilus Beebe?~~ Graywalls (talk) 03:40, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind. Looking in the template potential claim to notability as "first" pilot licensed under the the New Jersey Commission Graywalls (talk) 04:32, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

On a non-procedural note, I think we should at least keep Beebe for being notable per scope creep. BeanieFan11 (talk) 02:21, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Having looked at the first three with the first one being Beebe himself, they certainly look as though they are non-notable. The main reference for James Callahan (pilot) is an interview, which is WP:PRIMARY. The first three articles are framework article with almost no biographical information. I found one entry that is notable on another Afd. scope_creep^Talk 15:48, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The issue is that a bundled nomination does not provide an adequate forum for each article to be independently examined and debated on its merits. Perhaps some of these subjects are non-notable, as Charles O. Beebe was deemed to be. But others may be notable, as Joseph Henderson is. They should each be considered independently. Jfire (talk) 15:47, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I updated my comment above. The Joseph Henderson article will need to be looked at again, because 5 members of the WP:ARS were in attendance, which makes it a ideologically driven block keep !vote. scope_creep^Talk 15:51, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - These boat pilots do not seem to be notable, and are part of a walled garden. They all seem to be men who were born, did their job like hundreds of thousands of other employees, possibly won a non-notable award like hundreds of thousands of other employees, maybe raised a family and died. If these were female nurses or another skilled profession they would never pass notability for simply doing their job. I will hold off on !voting after a deeper dive into the sources, but am leaning towards delete all as run-of-the-mill entries WP:MILL. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Netherzone (talk • contribs) 17:20, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: All Ten There seems to be a misapprehension that statements by a creating editor are invariably true. It should be acknowledged that creating editors are often unduly protective of their work, This holds true with statements in edit summaries when articles are created. It comes from the concept "getting your retaliation in first" and creates an apparent expectation that what follows is correct.
These articles are part of a walled garden. Maritime pilots work in a hazardous profession by definition. The subjects of these articles were born, grew up to adulthood, married, had children, and died. They are WP:ROTM workers performing their work, as do many millions of people each day. Their job is not notable, nor is their performance of it, and they are not made notable by the times they lived in.
Each fails WP:BIO, each fails WP:GNG. Some facts in the articles are interesting, and, where references permit, could and should appear in Sandy Hook Pilots if they are not present already. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 07:06, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Satisfies the WP:BASIC guidelines by being supported by numerous reliable published sources, including secondary sources that exhibit intellectual independence from one another and independence from the subject matter. For example, front-page obituaries in major newspapers for James D. M. Beebe. Let's ensure the enduring recognition of the notable 19th-century Sandy Hook pilots in our encyclopedia! Preserving their legacy is essential for any comprehensive record. I do not like putting so many pilots into one Afd request. Greg Henderson (talk) 16:51, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - There's four articles solely dedicated to him here so he's passes coverage guidelines. Him being the first pilot in that area also seems to be of something of note. I'd agree that he's not the most notable person ever. KatoKungLee (talk) 17:16, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Something also needs to be done against mass nominations of articles like this. I question how in-depth of an investigation on each person could have been done when 10 articles are in play at once and it's asking too much of people to go through all of these nominations at once.KatoKungLee (talk) 17:19, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@KatoKungLee, The nomination was made in good faith by a very experienced editor. There is nothing incorrect nor against policy with creating a bundle of related articles to be deleted together. It is definitely not against policy to do so, it actually saves editors' time as well as closing administrator's time in the long run when there are a group of articles that are part of a WP:walled garden or have similar problematics. In fact we have a guideline on it: WP:BUNDLE. There is a long history behind the articles in this walled garden, several editors and admins are aware of this case. Netherzone (talk) 22:14, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
'Comment' I will do a source analysis table tommorrow on all of them, for the first reference block on each one of them. Beebe and the first two are certainly non-notable. By long established consensus, it needs more than single obit to establish notability. It needs more than obituaries to prove notability. scope_creep^Talk 19:48, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've been busy, so try and get this done tommorrow. See whats what. scope_creep^Talk 21:14, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I am holding off on !voting until the source analysis table is completed. Many thanks to @Scope creep for offering to do this as it is a VERY time consuming task and the tool sometimes has glitches and one's work can be lost (this has happened to me a few times on other AfDs). If a closing administrator stops by before the Source Analysis Table is posted, I request that the AfD be relisted to give editors the time to digest the contents thereof. Thanks in advance. Netherzone (talk) 21:37, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm interested to see if there is any meat on the bone. I suspect some of them are non-notable and some are. scope_creep^Talk 22:31, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as that was requested but right now, I'm seeing No consensus here. These bundled nominations are either successful (when the articles are nearly or completely identical) or they aren't successful and in the case of this bundle, I think there is enough difference between some of the articles for most editors to not argue for the same result for all of them and it is very time-consuming for editors to closely examine sourcing for 10 different article subjects. But maybe this coming source analysis will coalesce editors around one opinion on an outcome.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:28, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

'Comment Lets look at these in turn, working backwards, since I started on that and looking at each block in turn:
Thomas Cooper (pilot)

Ref 1 Short obituary two small paragraphs, spread across two pages, with an advert in the middle.

Ref 2 Birth records. WP:PRIMARY.

Ref 3 Unable to view it.

Ref 4 Talks extensively about this grandfather, but not much about him. It not significant as a ref.

Ref 5 Passing mention

Ref 6 Discusses the "Daniel Webster" Not about him.

Ref 7 Passing mention

Ref 8 Small article, saying he was in town and boat was wrecked. Its not significant. Passing mention at best.

Ref 9 Another newspaper entry. Very short. States he will be in charge. Its a passing mention

Refs 11,12, 13 are the same. He is will charge of piloting.

This constitutes, two small obits, a birth record and several paras about his parents along with notices of his work in the local and very local paper. This person is non-notable. scope_creep^Talk 11:26, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

William Robinson Lampee

Ref 1 Essentially an X of Y article, a small profile on each pilot working the harbour.

Ref 2 Birth census record for his children.

Ref 3 Unable to view it. Its a raw search url

Ref 4 Mentions his grandfather took him on cruises, but non-existant on detail in the context. Its actually Charles I Lampee, not about William Robinson Lampee

Ref 5 All passing mentions on Thomas Cooper

Ref 6 Its about John H McManus. Not specific

One thing I noticed is the couple of the book references are to the same book, same page number. This person is non-notable by a long way. A small profile in an X of Y article doesn't make you notable. scope_creep^Talk 11:39, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

John Henry Low

Ref 1 Census record for marriage. WP:PRIMARY.

Ref 2 Non-ref. No page number. A search archive.org where it is located. Sorry there is a page number:82. Picture of the "Edwin Forrest" that he ordered. Passing mention.

Ref 3 Newspaper obit. Decent ref.

Ref 4 Not a ref for him. It is the "Liberty"

Ref 5 Newspaper entry. Not significant. Small para

Ref 6 Passing mention is a newspaper entry. Not significant.

Ref 7 Another small newspaper entry. Not significant.

As with the other, ultra-local coverage that is not significant in its own. Per long consensus, since 2006, the single obit is not sufficient. This person is non-notable scope_creep^Talk 11:50, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Murphy (pilot)

Ref 1 Birth records WP:PRIMARY and non-rs

Ref 2 A substantial obit. Decent ref but ultra local again for Boston port town.

Ref 3 Short newspaper article about reading of the will

Ref 4 Small obituary. A very small 10 line para. Not significant.

Ref 5 Mentions Murphy as the pilot. Not significant. WP:PRIMARY.

Ref 6 A letter from the pilots themselves including Murphy, something about misrepresenting their board. WP:PRIMARY.

Ref 7 Mention him working as a pilot. Passing mention. WP:PRIMARY.

Ref 8 Arrival of the "The Great Eastern". He was the pilot. Passing mention.

Ref 9 Small para, another obit. 8 lines. Its a death notice. Not significant.

No doubt that being pilot is an important job, but several of the these references are notices of the work he was going to do as a pilot and at best they are WP:PRIMARY. If there was a couple of references to go with the big obit, it would been kept assuming they were WP:SECONDARY but currently this person is non-notable scope_creep^Talk 12:03, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Gideon L. Mapes

Ref 1 Smithtown news. Passing mention. He was the pilot.

Ref 2 Marriage details. WP:PRIMARY. Non-rs

Ref 3 Taken sick while working. Two small paras.

Ref 4 Details of the "VERA CRUZ" oil painting. passing mention.

Ref 5, 6 are census details. WP:PRIMARY and non-rs.

Ref 7 404

Some of the worst references. Man doing his job with hearsay and notices. The subject is absolutely non-notable. scope_creep^Talk 12:21, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Josiah Johnson (pilot)

Ref 1 A newspaper obit, in the front page of "The Brooklyn Daily". Might be good this one.

Ref 2 Census records. Non-RS. WP:PRIMARY.

Ref 3 Two paragraphs in the "Veterans who pass a life of hairbreadth escapes" article.Not significant. Interviewed for it.

Ref 4 Launch of a ship. Not significant.

Ref 5 Statement piece. WP:PRIMARY.

Ref 6 Lots of passing mentions in this book, although I think its the name of a boat. Not significant.

Ref 7 Record of American and Foreign Shipping 1881.Not significant.

None of these are real coverage. The same kind of coverage, lots of passing mentions of man doing his work being used to spin up an article. Nothing here that is significant that can be called WP:SIGCOV. There is three criteria in WP:BIO. This person fails to meet any of them. Fails WP:BIO. This person is Non-notable. scope_creep^Talk 12:34, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Josiah Johnson Sr.

Ref 1 Small paragraph about the pilot and the boat named after him. Not significant.

Ref 2 Again. Gbook ref about the pilot and the boat named after him. Not significant. Only a single of him. More of the boat named after.

Ref 3 Census. Eight children. WP:PRIMARY.

Ref 4 Boat launch notice. Not specific to Johnson.

Ref 5 The boat getting down by a ship "Wanata"

Ref 6 Article thanking the town when the boat was ran down and belongings saved. WP:PRIMARY.

There is nothing here that makes person special. Fails all three criteria of WP:BIO. Fails WP:SIGCOV. This person is Non-notable scope_creep^Talk 13:57, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Electus Comfort

Curious name for the man. Electus??

Ref 1 No page number on article but page 18 anyway. Just the image on page 18. Nothing else. Not significant.

Ref 2 From Sandy Hook to 62° but page 336 anway. Seems to be a whole chapter. Good be a good if it was verified.

Ref 3 Marriage notice. Not significant.

Ref 4 Census again. WP:PRIMARY. Non-rs

Ref 5 Not specific to Comfort.

Ref 6 Passing mention

Ref 7 Shipping movements. Not significant.

Ref 8 Another doing a job of work passing mention.

Ref 11 is a death notice.

This could potentially be borderline but a single reference is insufficient to prove WP:BIO. This person is Non-notable scope_creep^Talk 14:14, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

James Callahan (pilot)

Ref 1 and 2 Non-rs

Ref 3 Widow of Callahan, marrying his best mate. Not significant.

Ref 4 Callahan being interviewed at a tribunal. WP:PRIMARY.

Ref 5 Notice of pilot boat "William Bell" being launched. Not significant.

Ref 6 More about the William Bell. Not signficant and can't be used notability.

Ref 7 Callahan is not mentioned in this book.

No real sources in the first block. This person fails WP:BIO, all the criteria, in fact they is no references at all in this article. This person is Non-notable. scope_creep^Talk 14:29, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

James D. M. Beebe

Ref 1 Quite a substantial obituary. It is a good source.

Ref 2 The launch of the "David T. Leahy" Not significant.

Ref 3 Another obit. Not significant.

Ref 4 Very short notice in the NY Times. Not significant.

Ref 5 Another small obit. Two small paras. Not significant.

One big obit and a couple of small ones. If I was to !vote on this, I would it was a weak keep. Its not what I would consider really WP:THREE WP:SECONDARY sources. scope_creep^Talk 14:29, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all ten articles - based on the detailed source analyses by Scope creep, and the comments by Timtrent, these individuals do not meet criteria for notability. They were simply doing their high-risk jobs as boat pilots - run of the mill WP:MILL. Netherzone (talk) 13:26, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all articles except James D. M. Beebe. It is quite a long obit and there could be more history there. It unusual to have such a long obit unless there was something else going on. I think it should be a Weak Keep. scope_creep^Talk 17:09, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all 10 - Based on the above sources, just having one good source is not enough. HarukaAmaranth ^春 _香 02:02, 13 October 2023 (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.