Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Captain James Buxton

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. Jafeluv (talk) 10:36, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Captain James Buxton[edit]

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

Genealogical biography of subject that is not known for fame, achievement, or notoriety. Article combines material from three unreliable and contradictory sources to reach a conclusion not stated or consistently supported by any of the sources. One reference is an individual's collection of unauthenticated research material presented on Ancestry.com, another is a name listed among hundreds with no indication that the name on the list refers to the subject of the article, and the third reference is a personal hobbyist's website. Professional genealogical studies and research are only considered reliable, when based solely on primary documentation. Anything less is wishful thinking. See WP:NOTDIRECTORY and WP:SYNTH. Cind.amuse (Cindy) 05:47, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: no evidence subject is notable. TallNapoleon (talk) 09:01, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or userfy; notability not established. Matching family details of findagrave links [here] and [here] both give yearofdeath as 1817 and state military service, but do not meet WP:SOLDIER; WP:N and WP:GNG not demonstrated, barring additional sourcing. Dru of Id (talk) 12:06, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 13:53, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 13:53, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Does not appear to be especially notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:22, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Userfy - subject does not appear to be notable per WP:SOLDIER, WP:ANYBIO, or WP:GNG. Most references are genealogical ones, and on the balance are not considered reliable sources. The article looks like good work by the user, but the subject does not meet notability requirements are previously stated, and thus should not be lost, and possibly userfy'd. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 00:05, 6 September 2011 (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.