Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Frederick Weaver (American Revolutionary)

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 WP:SNOW deleted by User:Orangemike. (Non-admin closure) "Pepper" @ 03:55, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Frederick Weaver (American Revolutionary)

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

This person seems to me to fail the Wikipedia notability guidelines for people/bios, i.e. WP:PEOPLE. He did not serve in any great capacity in the revolution (he wasn't an officer), he didn't serve in any state or federal government capacity, and he is not notable. If we built articles for every American ancestor or soldier mentioned in a book, then the notion of "notability" lacks any real purpose. I'm a fan of "Wikipedia isn't paper," but Wikipedia is not one big family tree either (like, say WikiTree). I'd love to have a page on Wikipedia for my Revolutionary ancestor Paschal Tucker, but he really didn't do anything. This article is never going to be more than a stub, most of the article is not about the subject explicitly, the sources are a bit iffy, and the person is just not notable. TuckerResearch (talk) 18:33, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete He served as a private and was present at one battle. He later got married. In no sense do those bare bones facts establish notability, and the rest of the article is about his family tree. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 21:49, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I heartily support genealogical research, but it doesn't necessarily belong on Wikipedia; this is a good example. He fought as a soldier, got married, had a family with some history, etc. However, I'm not convinced at all of his actual notability. GAB^Hello! 22:04, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I really don't have anything more to add. This is basically not very good genealogical research with no attempt to show notability. I removed some off-topic original research earlier. I see the editor created a similar article which was speedy deleted. Hm, perhaps I should look at my family tree again. I know there are articles here on a couple of entries in my family tree. :-) Doug Weller talk 16:02, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:MILL. If he had notable descendants, then I would change my mind. Bearian (talk) 20:11, 25 April 2016 (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.