Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thomas Wellington Blair

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Thomas Wellington Blair was proposed for deletion. This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was to delete. Cool Hand Luke 02:12, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

  • Delete. Not notable.CB Droege 20:07, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Notable. anthony 警告 20:07, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)
    • For what, Anthony? What was he notable for? If you're not just voting "keep" to disrupt VfD again, I'm sure you can tell us.
      • He was a private in the 9th Texas Infantry
    • And we need an article on every other private, corporal, seargant, lieutenant, captain, major, and colonel in the 9th Texas, too, right? Geogre 15:53, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)
      • We don't need anything. I think the encyclopedia would be better if we had an article on every private, corporal, seargant, lieutenant, captain, major, and colonel in the 9th Texas Infantry. That's why I voted that we should keep this article, and why I voted that he is notable. That's not being disruptive, it's the whole point of VFD. anthony 警告 21:52, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Concur with Geogre. We are not a military phonebook.--Improv 17:58, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Lost/widowed VfD. This seems like genology, and the six websites with his name seem like the same, so delete, although I may be wrong. Cool Hand Luke 07:49, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete: A Civil War fatality. Just a CSA soldier. Geogre 15:18, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. -- Jmabel | Talk 02:51, Nov 17, 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. A very large number were killed in the US civil war, what makes this individual notable? Average Earthman 10:59, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)
    • What makes him not notable? Why can't we include an article on them all? Wikipedia is not paper. anthony 警告 21:55, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)
      • I am curious how far you take this. Would you have an article on everyone on earth if you could? I'm not meaning to be offensive here, but considering how many people die in wars, having articles on all of them seems really nonencyclopedic, messy, and not at all useful. Wikipedia is not a junkyard. --Improv 01:31, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
        • It's not possible to have create a verifiable, NPOV article on everyone on earth. I think we should have an article on everyone about whom we can have a verifiable, NPOV article. I don't see how that's nonencyclopedic. If someone adds the article, they certainly think it's useful, and I agree. I don't think there's anyone out there that someone wouldn't be interested in doing research on, so there's obviously a use. As for whether or not it's messy, I don't think it's messy if we do it right. And there's no reason to believe that this article would contribute to the mess, even if some other article, put in a bad place and not properly organized, might. I think objectively there is nothing messy about this article and at least someone finds it useful (in this case, I find it useful). Subjectively, it covers the life of a person, and is therefore in my opinion encyclopedic. I've heard no argument for deletion. All I've heard that even approaches an argument is "if we keep this we have to keep them all, and this will be messy/impossible". But as long as we organize things as we go it will not be messy, and to a large extent, it is possible. It's certainly not messy to provide information on every person in the 9th Texas Infantry. You could easily put "(9th Texas Infantry)" at the end of each title. From a theoretical perspective, the Wikipedia namespace is infinitely expandable. All that really limits us is disk considerations, and there's plenty of disk space to have an article on every person who ever lived and is documented. Hell, there's enough room for every single documented fact in the world to be in Wikipedia (at least, as long as we don't count facts documented solely in Wikipedia). I think Wikimedia should provide for them all. But when it comes to people, you've gotta either fork or put them in Wikipedia, and while I personally think it'd be better to fork (and just tightly integrate Wikipedia with its sister projects), others have argued against this. The tight integration would be necessary, and even just mentioning a 9/11 victim on an already existing disambiguation page has been deemed unacceptable. anthony 警告 12:13, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. in no way notable --Bucephalus 16:31, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete: no evidence of notability. Wile E. Heresiarch 05:53, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Maybe if he was a corporal. Gamaliel 09:56, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like other '/delete' pages is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion or on the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Thomas_Wellington_Blair&oldid=1138869324"