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 No consensus, even the nominator isn't sure it should be deleted. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:41, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Arthur M. Menadier

[edit]

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

I think it's failing the WP:GNG. Main author has a definite WP:COI, referring to themselves throughout article. Mostly unreferenced. Lord Spongefrog, (I am the Czar of all Russias!) 13:54, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Sounded like a very nice gentlemen, and seems to be very notable within his family. However, for inclusion in Wikipedia, under our current guidelines, there is a need for 3rd party – creditable – independent coverage from reliable and verifiable sources. Sorry to say, I was only able to find one reference to the Gentlemen, as shown here [1] from 1959. Just not enough at this time. Thanks. ShoesssS ^Talk 14:50, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I found a bit more information by searching on other variations of his name (Arthur Munroe Menadier, Arthur Menadier). This is one of the cases where I think that the person was notable, and if we could find references for the claims, notability could be proved. But the only reliable source references I can find do no more than confirm that he was an executive at a major advertising agency and that he had at least three daughters who got married (on the basis of engagement and wedding announcements which mention his name) and that (at keast at one point) he lived in Rye, New York. If press clippings about his accomplishments could be found, then those would probably be valid references as long as they had enough bibliographic detail to allow the material to be verified. -- Eastmain (talk) 19:31, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

From user Jphogan >>> this page should not be deleated at least in next ninety days as "notability" further established for such whose spirit and sense of "art" and "marketing" for twenty five years is reflected in near every piece of Johnson and Johnson advertising in radio, tv, and commercial product placement and print for whether baby powder or "no more tears"... His decendents make him even more notable and more notable than brother three in Menadier Otto, Fritz and Rudolph that preceded in Menadiers in America and fought in our Civil War. I am just one of over thirty of his grandchildren and with one that passed maybe still memorialized in room dedication at the Boston Children's Museum. I think I tried to respond on a diffent "talk" page than this that I hope is also linked for your considerations.

Oh, what happened to the page I once found here for Joseph V. Connolly Sr.?

Thank you whom found the articles and info on my grandfather. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jphogan (talk • contribs) 19:51, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

AArgh! Sorry. This page slipped of my watchlist. Okay. I've read the article again. Some of the info has changed my mind a little. He seems to be just notable enough. I'm not quite sure what Jphogan is on about with the relatives. What do you mean? His descendants don't make him any more notable unless they themselves are notable. I think much of this article needs to be removed, as it comprises of irrelevant info about his relatives. Sorry. Also, we really need to have sources/references for articles. Your own knowledge is probably correct, but we need stuff that appears in "reliable third-party publications". I'm gonna clean this article up a bit, but I'm not going to withdraw this nomination just yet, Lord Spongefrog, (I am the Czar of all Russias!) 20:21, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okayyy. I was about to clean it up. I got to fixing the image, but I couldn't really get my head round the grammar. Don't take offense at this, but some of the sentences are a bit, uh, weird. For example "He is known to have at least missed on daughter's graduation for being on a fishing trip with Robert Wood Johnson II." "In such's character is a notable history as the last known student of Boston Latin School to arrive at school still wearing knickers." Some of it drifts of topic too, detailing the lives of his relatives. Please don't take this the wrong way, but the article is about Arthur M. Menadier, not his family. But these in themselves aren't reasons to delete. His involvement with J&J is probably the only notability-creating factor. Thing. Sorry. I'll wait until somebody else comments. Lord Spongefrog, (I am the Czar of all Russias!) 20:38, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

user JPHOGAN >> I am working on the type of sourcing you may be used to for non-creative professional and his time with BBD&O with part of Johnson & Johnson account. Need to confirm still that with his "character" and friendship mentioned poetically is also of Johnson and Johnson having had their business spread across more than one agency until A.M.M. moved some to J&J to be with rest and under his supervision. His third party sources are there but slightly removed as nature of such marketer with "oversight" and involvment in all ad copy. How do you separate a story of a man from his patriarchy? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jphogan (talk • contribs) 19:07, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 14:03, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Very week Keep We have a problem with careers such as this, because unless people in advertising win major awards of some sort , there is great trouble documenting them. I have my doubts though about some of the writing in the article, such as "Husband of relative of Buffalo Bill Cody through Cody's parents' generation. Arthur married Mary Lucile Menadier, born on November 14, 1904 in Massachusetts, daughter of Mr. Edward Joseph Slamin and Elizabeth Josephine "EJ" Prendergast, four years after first making her acquaintance in 1926." which I cannot actually decipher. I think it means that either Edward Slamin or Elizabeth Prendergast is some unspecified relative of Buffalo Bill, though I don't see how it could possibly be relevant except the their family. The overall tone is that of a obituary for a family newsletter. DGG ( talk ) 02:36, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I could find no secondary sources online. I found a few primary sources, such as the little announcements they put in the business section of newspapers to say that someone has been promoted. If offline secondary sources are found, there should be no prejudice against its recreation. Abductive (reasoning) 03:21, 4 November 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.