Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nathan Bedford Forrest II

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. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 10:10, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nathan Bedford Forrest II

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

May not satisfy WP:BIO. Notability is not inherited. Edison (talk) 23:20, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:36, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:36, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It's my understanding that a Grand Dragon was the head of the KKK within an entire state. Therefore seems notable enough to me in his own right. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:34, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have not seen a guideline or even a "common outcome" convention that a state-level head of a racist organization gets inherent notability. Is there a better keep argument than "Seems notable?" Edison (talk) 19:43, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- There isn't one. It merely seems like common sense. The fact the organisation he headed was racist is utterly irrelevant to his notability. The fact he was a senior member of a notable organisation is what makes him notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:11, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- though repugnant, article in the NYTs plus being head of a college (WP:PROF#C6, common outcome) gives him notability (notoriety?) in his own right. -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 20:30, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete: First off, the GNG explicitly debars quotes from a subject on another issue as supporting the subject's notability; since the Times article isn't about Forrest, it doesn't support his notability. Secondly, the "college" was an obscure startup that lasted only four years before going belly up and being sold to the Klan, after which it folded the next year -- and by the bye, Forrest was the "Secretaty" and "Business Manager" of the institution, not its president -- not enough, IMHO, to support WP:PROF. Finally, I agree with Edison; there's nothing about being the state chapter head of a national organization that gives anyone a presumptive pass to the GNG. I just don't think he passes the bar. Ravenswing 04:02, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- Pres. of Lanier University, head of a nation-wide group, the Sons of Confederate Veterans and a Grand Dragon in the Second era KKK - I say thats enough to establish notability. I think his tenure as head of the SCV is perhaps his most notable claim to fame.--Bellerophon5685 (talk) 05:43, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Here are some interesting sources on his role in the Tulsa race riot:

The Nightmare of Dreamland, New Article Reveals Tulsa Founder's Violent Past and Role in 1921 Race Riot --Bellerophon5685 (talk) 05:50, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

- - Neither, of course, supporting his notability; both articles are about another fellow, the first one according only a couple sentences to Forrest, the second just a single sentence: mentions that short are not, as the GNG explicitly comments, long enough to meet its provisions. Ravenswing 06:23, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep nomination based on misunderstanding of WP:NOTINHERITED and a complete lack of application of common sense. Barney the barney barney (talk) 18:53, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Besides the irrelevant ad hominem attack, what reasons do you present for keeping the article, Barney³? Edison (talk) 23:52, 21 June 2013 (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.