Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Abraham Bryan

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 Refocus and move. There is consensus that as a biography, this lacks notability, but the farmhouse is found to be notable. I am moving it to Abraham Brian farm house for now per Diego's suggestion, but no consensus for any particular name can be found in this AfD, so don't take this closure as an argument not to move anywhere else.Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 11:18, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Abraham Bryan[edit]

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

Fails to meet the notability guidelines for biographies. Apparently the only reason this article was created was that the subject owned a farm on a Civil War battlefield. Nothing else to distinguish him from any other farmer on other ACW battlefields. Wild Wolf (talk) 16:09, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I agree its an interesting story but it doesn't seem to meet notibility. --Kumioko (talk) 21:03, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:13, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. One of countless millions whose property was destroyed by war. Clarityfiend (talk) 05:59, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Why the aticle creator thought this was a notable person I'll never know. Millions of farmers had armies fight over their land throughout history. This person is no more notable than any of the rest. Mad Man American (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 22:48, 20 January 2012 (UTC).[reply]
Delete He isn't relevant, delete the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thundersport (talk • contribs) 16:28, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. 76.7.231.130 (talk) 16:25, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not a notable person. 67.239.100.244 (talk) 17:12, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ Rename to Abraham Brian Farm House. A quick search at Google Scholar for "Abraham Brian" "Battle of Gettysburg" returns at least four peer-reviewed articles [1],[2],[3],[4] and two books [5],[6] mentioning the man in the context of the battle, proving that the story is notable per wp:GNG. If the problem per nom. is that it doesn't meet biography guidelines, change the focus of the article to the story or merge it into Battle of Gettysburg#Aftermath per wp:PRESERVE. Diego (talk) 10:28, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Look at [7], [8], [9], [10]... the house and story are notable, more than the man's whole biography. This article needs a change in focus, not a deletion. Diego (talk) 10:46, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea. How does it get done?--DThomsen8 (talk) 23:10, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've already changed the article's content to reflect the new direction, but the AfD should be closed (and the article kept) before the actual rename can take place. Diego (talk) 14:09, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not quite convinced that simply changing the focus of the article be an improvement. I can check the books I have on the battle but as I recall, the property played only a minor role in the battle, with the soldiers of either side using the structures as cover. There were several buildings on the southern edge of Gettysburg which were used for the same purpose, as were several buildings at Fredericksburg (and probably hundreds of buildings in other battles throughout history). Unless control of the Bryan property affected the battle in a vital way (and I haven't recalled coming across anything which suggests this), I'd say that this article should still be deleted or merged into the aftermath section of the battle article. Wild Wolf (talk) 04:43, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I can't see why being noted for affecting people lives should be less notable that being noted for affecting the course of the battle??? Diego (talk) 10:26, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what you mean here. I'm sure that there must have been dozens if not hundreds of farmers who had their property damaged or destroyed during the Civil War (in addition to the thousands of other farmers in other wars throughout history). The question I have about this article is what makes this particular farmer any more notable or significant than any other farmer who had his property damaged during war. Wild Wolf (talk) 04:17, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That is just the point, it doesn't matter what you think about this person and his house's notability, what matters is if the topic attracts the attention of reliable sources. Claiming that there were other poor farmers hurt by war is a proof by assertion for which no evidence is presented. And the point is that this poor farmer and his house for whatever reason have attracted attention for close to 150 years. Unscintillating (talk) 04:53, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I'll admit that there are sources which discuss this particular person and this particular property. But the reason I started this deletion proposal is that the Bryan property did not play a vital role in the battle. I have seen nothing either in the rewriten article or in this discussion which suggests that possession of the farm was vital for either army to win the battle. Perhaps someone can direct me to the book and/or website which argues this point. (And I can recall two books which points to farmers on other battlefields which suffered structural or crop damage during ACW battles: Stephen W. Sears' Landscape Turned Red: The Battle of Antietam and Robert K. Krick's Conquering the Valley: Stonewall Jackson at Port Republic. Given the frequency that Civil War armies fought on farmland, I find it hard to believe that Bryan is the only farmer to suffer loss during a battle. Again, I must ask what makes this particular property more notable than any other farmer.) Wild Wolf (talk) 04:20, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Q:"What makes this particular property more notable than any other farmer?" A:"That there are sources which discuss this particular person and this particular property". Being relevant to the battle outcome has nothing to do with this article's existence, since notability is not inherited. Notability at Wikipedia is established by direct coverage of the topic, not by its significance or relation with a different notable topic (though that significance can be used as a heuristic to determine if those sources are likely to exist).Diego (talk) 11:50, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted in the light of the late suggestion that the article should be refocused. Please ensure this is done within the duration of the next listing to prevent the article from being deleted.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Stifle (talk) 17:41, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. 198.252.15.202 (talk) 19:55, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Rename and Keep Rename Abraham Bryan Farm House to change focus from the owner to the building in the battle, per suggestion by Diego (talk above.--DThomsen8 (talk) 15:12, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note new subsection just added:

Brady photo and the 1985 rediscovery of biaxially tapered shakes roofing
Matthew Brady photographed the house shortly after the Battle of Gettysburg. In 1985, the photograph led to the rediscovery of a roofing technique used in Germanic settlements up to the end of the 1800s. Initially believed to be clay tiles, a closer examination of the photograph determined the roofing to be the so-called biaxially tapered shakes. Further analysis of 19th-century photos found 16 additional such roofs around the Gettysburg area.[4]

Comment This source is further evidence that the topic is notable beyond the effects on victims of the battle, and it's one more step in the direction of refocusing the topic. See also [11],[12] Diego (talk) 10:21, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Move to Brian House as per refocus. Unscintillating (talk) 06:17, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Gettysburg National Military Park, or delete as second option. Stifle (talk) 10:16, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Would you like to mention which policy-based argument supports your !vote? Diego (talk) 10:21, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The farm house seems notable. Just rename the article to Abraham Bryan farmhouse, or whatever its official name is. It says in the article it is a monument. If officially recognized as such, then its automatically notable as all national monuments are. The coverage alone though is sufficient. Dream Focus 22:35, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Being recognised as a "monument" by the owner of the land does not convey notability. Mt king ^(edits) 07:55, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a person he does not appear to be notable, as a building notability is not shown, is not listed on National Register of Historic Places but rather as a Classified Structures so other sources are needed to demonstrate notability are needed. Mt king ^(edits) 07:55, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We have other sources. Have you analyzed them? Diego (talk) 12:13, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Move as per Diego and Dream Focus. The topic is somewhat notable, and this is an interesting, sourced little tidbit of knowledge that ought to have a small place on Wikipedia. DCItalk 04:32, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Diego (talk) 13:41, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename as the farm house at least for now. --Bermicourt (talk) 17:42, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:00, 4 February 2012 (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.