Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thomas Clegg

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. Cirt (talk) 02:56, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Thomas Clegg

Thomas Clegg (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Notability PacificBoy 07:57, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

• User:Stifle/Don't say non-notable.

  I've removed the {{db-person}} because this article has one source listed, which could be taken as a claim towards notability. This should not be taken as a !vote on this article; I do not have access to the source and have not read it.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 10:12, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 12:03, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
• Delete Does not meet Wikipedia guidelines for notability. He's a soldier who served in the Civil War, nothing shows him as more notable than the thousands of other men who did. GBooks does turn up several Ghits, but they are for a British man who was prominent in the anti-slavery movement. [1] Edward321 (talk) 13:31, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
• Delete. Not notable, no real claim of notability. Niteshift36 (talk) 14:29, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
• Speedy delete: Article does not even make a claim that the subject is notable. — Bdb484 (talk) 06:30, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
• Delete The article currently makes no claims as to how the subject is notable. I suspect that there must be some reason why he is mentioned in the book, and I have to wonder where all the personal details about his life have come from (i.e. if there were citations, perhaps he would be notable, I don't know) but as it stands there is nothing other than a book published in 1892, that no one seems to have. There are no page numbers cited also, which makes it even harder to verify. It seems that the original editor who created the page no longer exists on wikipedia, or has changed username (based on what is on their user page), thus there doesn't seem much of a chance that they will respond to any requests to provide page numbers and some clarification of why the subject was mentioned in the book. As such, I feel that there is not much of chance that this article will be improved beyond its current state and as such, despite my usual penchant for voting keep for most things, in this case I must vote for this article to be deleted. — AustralianRupert (talk) 04:34, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

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.