Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Simon Addis

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 delete. Flowerparty^☀ 00:42, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

Simon Addis

Non-notable person. Only references are genealogical directory entries. Fails both WP:NOTE and WP:NOTDIR: Wikipedia articles are not.....genealogical entries. Drawn Some (talk) 02:40, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I agree with the nominator. Take it to WhichDeadPatriotIsThat.com. Crafty (talk) 02:49, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete He was a soldier in the American Revolution, and was a family man. Neither makes him notable. Wikipdeia is not a directory. Edison (talk) 02:53, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This would be a great entry in wikigeneology if such a project existed. Apteva (talk) 02:55, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Who would not be happy to find him as an ancestor at www.ancestry.com. (which is not Wikipedia)?Edison (talk) 03:49, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I'm quite disappointed at the continued wikihounding of nom against the creator of this article, this is what brought this to my attention. Having done a quick search it didn't take long to find [1] quite a few hits suggesting there are sources to help fill in this stuby article to defend its inclusion. Historical figures by definition means that sourcing takes longer to find and interpret but even a basic google book search shows they indeed exist. It would be nice to have a better article explaining more the notability of this person but we have to also not push into original research and instead find the sourcing that explains the notability for us. If nom isn't willing to do that legwork then it may be best for them to focus on building articles of their own rather than attempting to remove the work of someone they apparently are at odds with.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Benjiboi (talk • contribs)

Unfortunately, as I said in the nomination, the only available references are genealogical directory entries, as your search discovered. Since these were people from New Jersey, the references would be most likely to be found in NJ and NY libraries and Google was allowed to scan their books. I am surprised, Benjiboi, that you don't seem to understand WP:NOTDIR or else willfully choose to ignore the consensus that Wikipedia articles are not genealogical entries. Please clarify which is the case because I am trying to AGF here about your comments. I am also concerned that you are dealing with deletion discussions on the basis of emotion rather than actually analyzing the articles and topics. Drawn Some (talk) 13:44, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

These sources demonstrate that indeed this person is notable enough to be listed even though they died over 200 years ago. You incorrectly state "only available references", these are actually the only available references as of the moment on Google Books. My point is that if these sources are readily available it follows that others exist as well. I'm hardly basing my opinion on emotion but thanks for the allegation of such, AGF indeed. I didn't state you didn't do any searching but that you're working to delete an article that seemingly your main interest is the creator of it rather than the content; and that you seem unwilling to do the legwork of finding and adding the needed sourcing so it may be wisest to let those who are do so. Feel free to to find any personal attack, I'm pretty sure I avoided doing any such thing. -- Banjeboi 14:18, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)You might take a minute to read WP:RS before throwing out accusations of bad faith. The problem with these sources is that they don't show notability; every one I looked at was either a paragraph or so in a genealogy (and I can tell you from personal experience that not all genealogies are reliable sources), or a passing mention in a book of will abstracts. These types of things have long consensus on Wikipedia as being trivial coverage, which WP:BIO specifically says does not establish the notability of the subject. I assure you I have no dog in this fight (I came across the AfD while doing AfD sorting), and a good faith search on my part isn't turning up reliable sources showing notability. If you think those sources are out there, by all means add them, but please be civil to the people who couldn't find them. (Closing admin - please take this as a delete !vote).--Fabrictramp | talk to me 13:53, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Drawn Some has a string of deletions against RAN and gives every impression of wikistalking them. Sorry, I just see this as yet another bad faith nom. The bio subject is long-dead so sourcing will have to be unearthed and likely will take time and patience which doesn't lend itself to a 7-day AfD skuffle. In these cases it takes nay but one source to show viola they are indeed notable. Yes it would be nice if that source majicly popped up to end this exercise but I have more trust in the article creator in this case than the nom. If someone rolled up who is an authority in American Revolutionary War and helped establish that indeed this person simply couldn't be notable for thier pre-war, war and post-war career then I could be swayed. I'd rather err conservatively that there is some notability here that needs to be spelled out and documented which is regular editing but certainly may take time. -- Banjeboi 14:18, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For the purposes of this discussion, the nominator's motivations are not relevant. The article is clearly not eligible for inclusion and should be deleted. If you have concerns about Drawn Some's conduct towards the article creator you should raise that in the appropriate forum. Crafty (talk) 03:40, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 13:42, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 13:42, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'm sorry, but his chief claim to notability is being a captain and fighting in a war. Well if that isn't notable enough to save Stephen Trujillo, who was also decorated for saving other soldiers and recognized by the President during the next State of the Union speech, then it isn't notable enough to keep Simon Addis. As for the wiki-stalking accusation, I can't see why this applies here and raising it looks like a diversionary smokescreen. The subject gives every appearence of being non-notable and should be nominated, regardless of who the author or nominator are. Niteshift36 (talk) 14:29, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of New Jersey military officers in the American Revolution, which seems to contain pretty much the same information about him anyway (whether that is a suitable page is another question not currently up for discussion). There is no point in duplicating the information when the list article isn't that long to start with and the likelihood of any dramatic expansion seems low considering the apparent lack of available sourcing. Guest9999 (talk) 18:17, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BIO, WP:RS and User:Niteshift36. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 23:54, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of New Jersey military officers in the American Revolution, no indication in the article that the subject did anything noteworthy Kernel Saunters (talk) 08:12, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BIO, WP:RS or *Redirect to List of New Jersey military officers in the American Revolution. --Cameron Scott (talk) 09:23, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Another relevant essay would be WP:MILMOS#NOTE which says "any person who is only mentioned in genealogical records or family histories, or is traceable only through primary documents, is probably not notable." Niteshift36 (talk) 14:29, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The proposed redirect is to a list which also has no good reason for being in the encyclopedia. What is encyclopedic about being an officer (of any rank) including militia in a given war? Do not redirect. Consider for separate AFD List of New Jersey military officers in the American Revolution. Edison (talk) 15:49, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Neither this, nor the proposed redirect-to article demonstrate notability. Simply serving in the Revolutionary War is not enough. ThuranX (talk) 16:08, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Junior officer with, as far as I can see, nothing particularly notable about him. One of many thousands of similar rank and achievements. --
Delete -- A NN junior officer, unless there is evidence of some notable achievement (and there is none yet*. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:38, 18 July 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.