Samuel J. Hays (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

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

Biography stub of a 19th century plantation owner. Only article that even vaguely contributes to WP:GNG or WP:BIO is an article from a 1944 newspaper article that discusses the subject in the context of local history, but I do not think this is enough to warrant an article. Other sourcing only mentions the subject in passing, or it the context of interactions with other more notable individuals (WP:NOTINHERITED). Article could be largely merged with Jackson, Tennessee. nf utvol (talk) 18:06, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Politicians. nf utvol (talk) 18:06, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military and Tennessee. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:11, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: I'm always undecided about articles dealing with people from over a hundred years ago; I've tended to look at them as if they were active in current times. Outside of the slavery parts (which are repugnant), this is a businessman and a soldier. I suppose being offered a genralship would show notability, but the rest of his military career doesn't seem impressive and the business activities are not notable. I'd be more inclined to keep the article if there was at least one book written about him. We simply seem to have bits and pieces brought together to make a somewhat interesting (but brief) biography here. This would perhaps be more suited for a local history project. Oaktree b (talk) 21:27, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• I'm leaning delete at this point - the 1944 source is best but it may even be tertiary (someone reading their report to the paper.) That being said I'm loathe to - the problem is that notability isn't quite clear from the sources. Are there any better sources out there? SportingFlyer T·C 07:10, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - if not independently notable as "local flunky of Andrew Jackson" or "drinking buddy of Jefferson Davis" could we turn him into a section of dad Robert Hays (Tennessee) or brother Stockley D. Hays? jengod (talk) 15:30, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  That might be the most appropriate thing here. I see you've done a ton of work expanding the article since its nom, and I don't want to see that work and the info go to waste, but I'm still not sure it's actually hitting the bar for notability since so much of the reporting is, as you said, boozing it up with Davis while at West Point or being a politico for Jackson. The stuff in the Williams books could contribute to his own notability since there are a few paragraphs devoted to him, but I'm inclined to keep the AfD going to see what the broader community thinks. nf utvol (talk) 16:55, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  The other option and really the reason this article exists is Wards of Andrew Jackson--he used these nephews in lieu of biological sons, and as per the Inman chapter on the first generation, they were all enabling one another within the endogamous kinship-network business model. We have A. J. Hutchings as a subsection of John Hutchings (slave trader) for the time being since he, like Hays, was pretty happy just being rich. meanwhile Andrew Jackson Jr. and the Indigenous members of the Andrew Jackson household are the subject of a lot of scholarship even though their accomplishments are not independently notable. IDK. I can just put it on findagrave if it doesn't have a place here LOL. jengod (talk) 19:51, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: article is vastly expanded since nomination, it is well researched and the figure was incredibly notable at their time. There is actually a few additional sources about Hays being a secretary to Jackson, his Mexican-American war service as well as to his property Bellwood that could be added here. Clearly a notable figure and its worth not scrubbing the site of well researched and accountable work on slavery just because the history is repulsive. It is this history is important to remember.Nayyn (talk) 23:44, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Can you share the sources about him being a secretary to Jackson? And does that lend notability? Employment by a notable individual does not necessarily mean the employee is notable. See WP:NOTINHERITED.nf utvol (talk) 14:49, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Passes WP:GNG. Enough material to write a fairly substantial article. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:43, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: The article is large enough at this point thus it wouldn’t make sense to delete or merge with another article.Ihavetoentermyusername (talk) 17:29, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment − I would encourage the two Keep !votes to review the sourcing. Just because it's a long article doesn't mean the subject is notable. The vast majority of sources, while valid for supporting the statements of fact, are not necessarily adequate for determining notability (e.g., primary sources such as correspondence or records, or passing mentions in references to other people or events). I don't think anyone is arguing that this isn't a well written, thoroughly sourced article...it most certainly is. The question is whether or not the individual has actually received adequate signfiicant coverage in independent, reliable sources to warrant inclusion per WP:GNG or WP:BIO. nf utvol (talk) 14:49, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]