Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Minor Maury

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 no consensus. Balanced headcount, with sources sufficient to at least plausibly meet WP:N (note that WP:SOLDIER supplements WP:N, it doesn't superceed it. WilyD 08:43, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

John Minor Maury[edit]

John Minor Maury (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This US Navy lieutenant's accomplishments are too Minor to satisfy WP:SOLDIER. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:15, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - I'm adverse to dumping historical material without good cause. Tossing aside specialized criteria for soldiers, this smell very much like a GNG pass as the subject of multiple, independently-published pieces of coverage. See, for example, THIS in the book Early Settlers of Alabama, by James Edmonds Saunders. One page of the biography is missing from the Google Books preview, but it's clear even from the small section that we can see that this individual is the subject of published scholarly interest. Carrite (talk) 06:16, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 19:30, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 19:30, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 19:30, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - lack of notability. Based on the article and also on the account in Alabama Families (which is available in full at the Internet Archive [1]), this individual is known to history almost exclusively as a naval officer, which makes WP:SOLDIER is the right metric to use. The fact that a family member wrote a brief piece of ancestor-worship and got it inserted in a not-particularly-scholarly collection of family accounts by an amateur local historian does not do much to establish independent notability. There is nothing special about this man's naval career that makes him stand out as particularly notable. This s more a case of a witness to notable history than a notable participant. Agricolae (talk) 01:55, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 01:02, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Agricolae. Additionally, there are some verifiability issues as this is biography that lacks inline citations. I know that BLPs have stricter guidelines than "BNLP"s, but still there are some verifiability issues. Go Phightins! (talk) 02:28, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • . The material is fascinating, and I am reluctant to urge deletion of the article. Still, there are numerous issues with it that would have to be addressed in order for it to be kept.
    • Sources would be a must, and there are none, and the notability question is tricky.
    • He doesn't meet the Military History WikiProject's guidelines for notability (WP:SOLDIER), nor did he do anything that extraordinary in his career.
    • The Nukuhiva story is interesting but unsourced.
    • Furthermore, Maury's participation in such a variety of battles doesn't necessarily qualify him for inclusion, and doing so would set a precedent for allowing other non-notable officers to get articles. In the end, it should probably be deleted. dci | TALK 17:18, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • I was leaning toward delete but would now go for a weak keep, if the editor below is able to add sources. dci | TALK 19:15, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Edmond Saunders book gives him significant attention and other sources exist that show that his life was considered notable and worthy of historical record. I've added some references to end the concern that the biography is completely unsourced. It would be easy to add more and I'm sure the page deserves more wikilinks to other pages. I will try to add some but am short of time. This is an interesting page and it would be a real shame for Wikipedia to lose it. Fireflo (talk) 13:18, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Makes sense, if you get sources added it should be kept. Be watchful about editing other people's comments[2]. dci | TALK 19:14, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • This person is notable because a non-scholarly account of his life in an obscure book is prefaced with 'here is something interesting'? Seriously? Has there ever been a scholarly study of this man or his career? A historical journal article? Has anyone ever mentioned this man as being notable in his own right for the things that he did during his career? (as opposed to simply occupying a place in a pedigree) It doesn't look like it to me - a book about his brother that gives him four sentences certainly doesn't qualify. Others may disagree, but I would also suggest that a notice published by a magpie collector of family lore, having been sent to him by the subject's family, also shouldn't. Agricolae (talk) 08:20, 20 October 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/John_Minor_Maury&oldid=1142211947"