Charles O. Beebe: The only claim to notability made here is that he did the same job as his father and grandfather did.  Notability is not inherited, and being a maritime pilot is not a job that carries any inherent notability.  Melcous ( talk ) 04:21, 15 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and New Jersey .  Kpg jhp jm 05:26, 15 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History , Military , United States of America ,  and New York .  Graywalls ( talk ) 00:15, 17 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  In fact I think it would qualify for speedy deleion under criterion A7.  The article says "He is best known for coming from a multigenerational family of Sandy Hook pilots", and nothing in either the article or its references suggests that he has any claim to significance.  JBW ( talk ) 11:01, 15 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I wouldn't suggest it though.  If A7'd, it could end up being re-created as early as minutes later and phrased differently to meet A7 and it would likely be denied G4.  G4 coverage is only offered for articles that have gone through the full AfD reaching a firm "delete".  Graywalls ( talk ) 03:43, 16 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - I wrote the article on Charles O. Beebe , who stood as a notable figure in 19th-century America, renowned for his integral role as a Sandy Hook Pilot .  His lineage as the scion of the esteemed Beebe family, steeped in the tradition of guiding ships through the Sandy Hook waters, underscored his prominence.  Beebe further distinguished himself as a World War I veteran, where he honed his maritime skills while serving aboard the pilot boat Trenton, No. 4 .  His legacy remains indelibly marked by his unwavering commitment to piloting, ensuring safe navigation for countless vessels.  Moreover, it is worth noting that this article stands as a model of reliability and adherence to Wikipedia's notability and sourcing guidelines, boasting a commendable nine reputable sources, exemplifying adherence to Wikipedia's standards for verifiability.  In addition, there are 119,436 articles lacking sources, (see Category:Articles lacking sources), however the Beebe article has nine WP:RS and follows the WP:N guidelines.  What's the reason for singling me out?  Greg Henderson ( talk ) 15:44, 15 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] That is a kind of comment which frequently comes from new editors who are not yet acquainted with how Wikipedia works.  However, coming from an editor who has been here for almost 17 years, and who has made well over 17,000 edits, it is astonishing.  Nothing that you say has anything to do with Wikipedia's notability guidelines, and the existence of other articles lacking sources is not a reason for keeping this one (see WP:OTHERSTUFF ).  JBW ( talk ) 18:49, 15 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] GREG , AfD them if you believe they fail to meet GNG Graywalls ( talk ) 03:46, 16 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  Does not meet GNG with the coverage in a routine local source and non-independent sources.  JoelleJay ( talk ) 18:42, 16 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment - For WP:BASIC #1, There are multiple independent sources included in the article that combined demonstrate notability.  Please remember that notability is problematic with 19th century Sandy Hook pilots as some of the key references are offline.  Looping in @ A. B. : per our previous discussion on maritime pilots .  Greg Henderson ( talk ) 21:17, 16 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Source 1: Genealogy book (by a non-independent relative) that opens up to a page on James Dean Monroe Beebe that lists a "Charles" among his children but offers zero other context to identify this person as the "Charles Beebe" in question.  This source, which again is limited to his name in a list on page 176 and his own directory entry that literally only states he was the son of [JDMB] and his birthdate, is being cited to support the claims that Charles married certain people and that he apparently had a child when he was 14 years old .  N Sources 2 & 3: Obituaries for his father in two local newspapers, Asbury Park Press and The Daily Record, that mention Charles in passing and anyway are unlikely to be independent.  N Source 4: Utterly routine local-interest news from the same paper as #3.  N Source 5: Non-independent local obituary in the same paper as #3.  N Source 6: Non-independent local Elks Lodge announcement in the same paper as #3 that they are putting on a dinner to honor Charles Beebe.  N Source 7: Non-independent obituary for his wife in the same paper as #3.  N These are indisputably not enough for even the very low bar of NBASIC.  JoelleJay ( talk ) 04:05, 17 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete as non-notable, but there may be some contents suitable for merging into Sandy Hook Pilots .  This man was admirable, and he was important in his profession, but that's not the same thing as Notability for a person .  It's a very nicely written (and sourced) account of this man's life, but the sources (obituaries, genealogy, and a couple of garden-variety local news stories) do not constitute a basis for notability.  PS - It occurred to me that this article would be regarded as a worthwhile contribution at WikiTree.com, and I see that there's a profile for this man there that would be greatly enhanced by the addition of this article's content.  Orlady ( talk ) 01:02, 17 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete as non-notable for a stand-alone article, Wikipedia is not a newspaper.  See WP:NOTNEWS .  Kierzek ( talk ) 01:38, 17 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - a non-notable pilot.  Not everyone whose name is mentioned during their lifetime is wiki-notable.  The excellent source analysis by JoelleJay clears up any question.  Netherzone ( talk ) 18:26, 17 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete fails WP:GNG .  Mztourist ( talk ) 08:28, 18 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to James D. M. Beebe (his father) and add a brief sentence mention of Charles in the target page.   Not notable per source analysis provided by JoelleJay, and only claim to significance is affiliation with his father and grandfather.  Frank Anchor 15:34, 18 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] That sounds like a good solution.  Greg Henderson ( talk ) 15:50, 18 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] My concern with your suggestion Frank Anchor is that I'm not sure the father is notable either, or even the grandfather.  Melcous ( talk ) 23:56, 20 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I agree Melcous , the other day I looked at these articles, and I too question the notability.  Netherzone ( talk ) 00:00, 21 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] It's disheartening to hear that there are efforts to delete articles about notable 19th-century Sandy Hook pilots.  These articles can certainly be enhanced and should have a place in any encyclopedia dedicated to disseminating valuable information.  Efforts to improve and preserve the historical contributions of such individuals should be encouraged and supported.  Greg Henderson ( talk ) 00:11, 21 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The problem is that you continuing to call these people notable is not the same as demonstrating that they meet wikipedia's notability criteria.  Stop with the overwrought commentary and focus on that.  Melcous ( talk ) 00:38, 21 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Melcous : this is a reasonable concern, and the father and grandfather can be brought to their own separate AFDs.  Another possible redirect target is Sandy Hook Pilots (Beebe isn't named in that article, but that is an easily WP:SURMOUNTABLE problem).   I oppose an outright delete as Beebe and his relatives are reasonable search terms.  Frank Anchor @Frank Anchor re-directs can always be created very easily at any time.  Graywalls ( talk ) 16:39, 21 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] And now is as good of a time as any in order to preserve the edit history of the article.  Frank Anchor 19:12, 21 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] fully disagree with preserving edit history of this article.  Graywalls ( talk ) 19:21, 21 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] There may be good reasons for creating a redirect, but redirecting in order to keep the edit history of an article for which there is a consensus to delete is not one of them.  JBW ( talk ) 19:41, 21 September 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.

Discussion outcome: delete