Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/William Gardener

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete. Redwolf24 01:38, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] William Gardener

I created this page some months ago. William Gardener was my Great Grandfather and I have been asked by a family member to remove the page from Wikipedia, after a lot of discussison with this family member I with regret ask you to please remove it from your site —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Johnvernon (talk • contribs) 2005-07-28 09:10:16 UTC.

• Weak keep Not 100% sure he's notable enough, but the article is certainly quite nice and seems well-researched. JZ 09:34, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
• Please note that the 3 images on this article that assert "copyright ajv private collection", Image:Ajvtime.jpg, Image:Ajvwg.jpg, and Image:Ajvms.jpg, are now listed on Wikipedia:Copyright problems. Uncle G 09:48:58, 2005-07-28 (UTC)
  • The two photographs are so old that any copyright long expired. I retagged them as public domain-old. Please note that someone sloppily labeling every image on the page as copyrighted (including one used in other articles) is not proof of copyright. DreamGuy 21:50, August 2, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, nice article, notable enough subject jamesgibbon 10:10, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep; good article. Shame about the picture problems. Agentsoo 10:55, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Wellwritten article but subject does not seem notable. Capitalistroadster 12:42, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, agree with Capitalistroadster. the wub "?/!" 13:59, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete--royal servants aren't really notable. That man had some killer facial hair, however. Meelar (talk) 14:10, July 28, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete — nn — RJH 16:02, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
• I suspect that notability is moot, and that this subject is simply too secret for Wikipedia. Reading in between the lines of the nomination by Johnvernon (talk • contribs) and taking into account that user's earlier edits to this article and the repeated mentions of a "private collection", my suspicion is that this article is derived, possibly in toto, from unpublished sources, namely the private papers of a royal servant, held by his family, or an unpublished biography written by a family member. So we have a very serious verifiability problem here. I've looked around for other sources, but cannot find this person mentioned anywhere. (The only person that I can find is a William Gardener who was an Admiral's Steward.) It seems that the famous U.K. tradition of royal servants keeping their mouths shut and staying out of the limelight has been upheld and upheld well in this case. The article is well written and laid out (I encourage User:Johnvernon to make other contributions to Wikipedia, on subjects where sources can be cited, if they will be like this.) and it is a shame to have to have to vote this way. Delete, unless sources are cited. Uncle G 16:09:38, 2005-07-28 (UTC)
• Delete not notable. Dunc|☺ 16:19, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per nominator's request.Gateman1997 17:10, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete given borderline notability and author's request. However, as a genealogist myself, I can say that Uncle G's comment that the information is "too secret" is not really the case. Even if it was taken from private records, almost all of the information (births, marriages, deaths, residences, etc...) for the periods covered in the article is of a type that is readily available in public records to anyone with access to a major genealogical collection - which includes almost anyone within driving distance of a major metropolitan area. Also, as to the author's assertion that a copyright of a 100+ year old photograph belongs to a "private collection", that is also incorrect. The fact that someone claims a copyright to a work that is clearly in the public domain due to its age should not cause us any concern. DS1953 23:20, July 28, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete (although not for the nominator's reasons, which are irrelevant to Wikipedia). There's no evidence of this person being notable. Wikipedia is not a collection of geneological entries. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 23:38, July 28, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - No claim of notability - Tεxτurε 17:23, 3 August 2005 (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.