Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Old Samuel Adams

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 (no notable information to be merged into Samuel Adams). Cbrown1023 01:57, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Old Samuel Adams

Old Samuel Adams (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Being the father of someone famous is an insufficient assertion of notability. TomTheHand 21:10, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Well said. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 22:03, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete I wouldn't like to generalize about parents of important individuals not being notable that, but in this case the individual appears to be non-notable in my view. TSO1D 22:25, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
• Merge? If there are sourced, relevant stuff it could be in the article on his son. Otherwise delete. Ned Wilbury 23:25, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete NN. Dionyseus 01:25, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
• Merge, it would hardly be the first time a not-independently-notable family member was merged into the notable family member's article. Stilgar135 01:26, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Reply Are we to fill up an article of a notable person with his/her entire non-notable genealogy tree? Dionyseus 01:38, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Reply Are we to assume that it's better for a person looking for "Old Sam Adams" to get no response than to end up at a relevant article? Stilgar135 03:26, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
    • Reply Why would anyone look for "Old Sam Adams"? As far as we know the only notable thing about him is being Samuel Adams' father. Dionyseus 04:55, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
      • Reply It's certainly conceivable, since somebody decided it was worth an article. He's definitely a bit player in American history, and if you think that people don't come to Wikipedia looking up bit players, you're mistaken. More to the point, your hypothetical doesn't work. Mentioning his father's name and occupation, which helps to indicate his social status, is a far, far cry from including a geneology. Stilgar135 05:19, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
    • Fancy meeting you here. "Wikistalking", anyone? Philwelch 01:50, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
• If I may propose a speedy merge (I deprodded this and should have merged it myself), let's do that. The two or so sentences in this article (geneological information only) can probably go into his son's bio. Philwelch 01:30, 13 December 2006 (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.