Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robert Hooper Stevenson

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. At the current state of the article and the discussion, consensus is that this brevet general is not notable enough for inclusion. That may change if somebody finds more sources about him. Sandstein 10:11, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Hooper Stevenson[edit]

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

Seems to fail WP:GNG and borderline fails notability guidelines for the military. While general officers are generally considered to be notable, his commission as a general was solely by brevet, not a permanent rank. Other than the fact that he held the rank at all, there seems little of military significance by this individual and the only references I can find are solely in a genealogical context. There were many hundreds of brigadier general brevets doled out during the Civil War, many for little more than patronage reasons, and the argument that all these individuals are notable seems somewhat ludicrous. Safiel (talk) 23:46, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Query - maybe I'm missing something but didn't the American Civil War run between 1861 and 1865? The subject is supposed to have been born in 1876 - a decade after that war ended. But I can find archive biographies for other people that list their post-Civil-War business dealings with the subject (like this one) which suggests Safiel's Civil War comment is accurate. The provenance of this item suggests he was born in 1838 and died in 1876, which would seem to be a better fit. However, those dates also suggest (if he was a Brigadier-General by the time the war ended) that he attained that rank at the age of 27. Not sure how notable that would be in the context of the Civil War but I think the whole thing needs clarification. Stalwart111 00:08, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Heh, clearly that birth date given in the article is wrong and probably is the death date. Just the fact that he is listed as the younger brother of another Civil War officer indicates that the date given in the article is erroneous. Safiel (talk) 00:36, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, absolutely. I might add the Boston MFA reference to the article just to verify the year of birth / year of death. It's certainly not "significant coverage" enough to justify keeping the article (in my opinion) and contributors to this discussion really shouldn't consider it coverage for the purposes of WP:GNG. But I think it's worth clarifying so that editors are at least commenting on an accurate article, even if the subject is not notable. Stalwart111 01:21, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 09:46, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 09:46, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 22:11, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I don't think he passes the relevant guidelines. Bearian (talk) 17:58, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - He was apparently breveted for service at Roanoke Island and New Bern during the Civil War and was wounded at the latter battle. He is clearly not as notable as his brother but I think he squeaks by on his own merits. The article is obviously a very weak stub and needs some additional information. -- DS1953 ^talk 04:13, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
delete - per {{subst:Bearian}}. Mr T ^(Talk?) ^{(New thread?)} 18:50, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I've written tons of articles on 19th century American folks, and I see no case for notability here. We are not ancestry.com--Milowent • ^hasspoken 03:59, 6 December 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.