Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/James Gallatin
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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 as per consensus. Pastor Theo (talk) 01:42, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- James Gallatin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
unremarkable person. His father is notable, certainly, but notability is not inherited, and the single act of publishing his journal entries in a magazine is not enough to pass WP:BIO. Ironholds (talk) 17:55, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep hard to believe that someone would bother writing about a fellow dead for over 100 years for no reason. His diary is an important historical resource, and is still in print. If you like, here's the original book review from the New York Times in 1915. Chubbles (talk) 19:41, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per diary, 8 page 1864 bio I added, and NYT obit. Surely there's more, but this is enough for a keep.John Z (talk) 08:06, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- There's an NYT obit? Ironholds (talk) 12:55, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- A short one now cited in the article, along with an 1864 biographical article.John Z (talk) 16:23, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- There's an NYT obit? Ironholds (talk) 12:55, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. —John Z (talk) 08:43, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep There are also other works written by and about him at Gbooks. Edward321 (talk) 01:51, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Interestingly, the diary may be a forgery. See [1] and p266 snippet by Raymond Walters, biographer of Albert Gallatin. Seems that this is largely or mostly, but not 100% accepted, as citations of it as factual still occur.John Z (talk) 09:42, 22 August 2009 (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.