Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Abraham Shushan

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. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 09:53, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Abraham Shushan

[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 outside/independent sources listed, just a poorly written article about a person with no notability (doesn't pass WP:N). Redditaddict69 ^{(click here if I screwed up stuff again)} ^(edits) 19:05, 14 August 2018 (UTC) I'm crossing out my original nomination due to the ones added by Bearian. I am still in favor of a deletion or a merging to the flood that he helped control. Despite having a decent amount of coverage and being the head of the levee board during the flood, I still don't think that this makes him notable. Being involved in scandals has only ever added to notability, not been the sole source of it. The article is definitely of a much higher quality after Bearian's edits, however. Redditaddict6 9 18:05, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Redditaddict69 ^{(click here if I screwed up stuff again)} ^(edits) 19:12, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions. Redditaddict69 ^{(click here if I screwed up stuff again)} ^(edits) 19:12, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No indication of notability, only one source. ^Semi_Hypercube ✎ 19:57, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete From a search on newspapers.com it appears he very well was an important political figure in 1930s Louisiana, however, none of those sources actually provide biographical information by which a properly sourced WP entry could be maintained. As a result, this article is essentially WP:OR. Abraham Shushan probably should receive a biographical treatment somewhere, but Wikipedia is not the place to originate it. Chetsford (talk) 23:22, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete being head of a city levee board is not a sign of notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:46, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A search of books online reveals many possible sources. The head of a levee board during the Great Mississippi Flood of 1927 should be notable. In fact, the New Orleans Airport was named for him, but later removed because of a scandal. Bearian (talk) 16:11, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but I am invoking both WP:BEFORE and WP:HEY, as well as WP:GNG and WP:POLITICIAN. I was able to find (and add) many sources about this person. The only reason he isn't better known today was because of the scandals. Bearian (talk) 17:53, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 21:35, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:HEY. Thanks Bearian! - Scarpy (talk) 21:52, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep seems to be a fairly important politician during the Huey Long era, with plenty of sources provided by Bearian. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 12:59, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep (read comment first) – I seem persuaded by Bearian's edits on the page but it still looks like he was just someone who assisted with stuff, knew famous people, and got involved in a banking scandal. I'd like to hear more opinions before closing. I'm still unsure if he meets WP:GNG, which I'd like to divert the discussion to. Redditaddict6 9 21:48, 28 August 2018 (UTC) (AfD nominator)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:15, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep gBooks search is dispositive.E.M.Gregory (talk) 10:57, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per recent article improvements. Notability has been sufficiently demonstrated. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:31, 3 September 2018 (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.