Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/William Sams

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 of the debate was obvious keep. --Tony Sidaway 16:03, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] William Sams

Non-notable participant in mildly-notable historical event for which he did nothing noteworthy. Delete as non-notable and unexpandable. --InShaneee 04:46, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

• Keep Obviously notable-only the brazenly ignorant would state otherwise. I expect a genuine apology from 'Yanksox' and 'InShaneee' for wasting my and other peoples precious time.Lentisco 04:38, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep I am changing my vote only because of other people that have expanded the page. I am annoyed at Lentisco for attacking and harrassing me and my nationality. I am glad OTHER people were able to show significance and not be vicious. Yanksox 23:50, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep All members and investors of Port Phillip Association should have seperate pages. Melbob 05:17, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
  • And what exactly is there to say on this one? --InShaneee 05:20, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. It's not apparent why being an investor of this Port Phillip Association makes one notable. Sandstein 05:23, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep From the point of Oz history Port Philip Association is important. To quote from the page: ...formed a company in early 1835 with a view to purchasing a large tract of land from the aborigines on the unsettled south coast of Australia, founding Melbourne and the future State of Victoria in the process.TransylvanianTwist 05:49, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete If the supporters can't think of anything interesting to say about him he's not notable. jbolden1517^Talk 06:22, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
• Weak keep and allow to expand. I agree that notability needs to be established, but it needs to be given a chance. As for mildy-notable historical event, I think not! -- I@n ≡ talk 07:13, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep have added to page . Keep as he was founding member of Melborne Cricket Club. Investor to Port Phillip Association. Held judicial post in Hobart and Launceston. Page to Duke of Kent etc. Its obvious to anyone with any interest in Australian history why this page should be kept. Why two Americans under 21 should hold sway over this page is beyond me. Eric A. Warbuton 07:40, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment IMHO adding that he once played a game makes him appear less notable... And please refrain from discussing other editors' ages and nationalities in a derogatory manner, please see WP:CIVIL. Weregerbil 08:41, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment - I wouldn't presume to know what is or isn't notable in US history, or Brazilian history, or Norwegian history.... When there is an article about the history of a country or region, it's at least polite to defer to the judgement of the people who hail from said country or region. -- Synapse 00:41, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- I@n ≡ talk 07:26, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, no particular notability established. Google does not suggest notability[1][2]. Weregerbil 08:41, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Google is a long way from being a comprehensive reference source on anything, and is of almost no use at all in determining the "notability" of historic subjects recorded largely in paper documents (ie anything before the 1990s) - although I know how difficult it is for most people under the age of 30 to come to grips with such a crazy notion. Lentisco 06:09, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Many people have helped build the path to a greater city/society, but I'm not sure that William Sams is worthy of his own page. Just because he was one of fifteen doesn't warrant him deserving of a page. Yanksox 11:20, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. a 30 second net search found - noted in the National portrait gallery of aust website [[3]] , listed as a character in a play "Johnny Fawkner: Apostle of Freedom" [4], and still being written about 130 years after his death. Relying on Has the person made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in the specific field? for many historical figures requires more than Ghitting. Looks to have been notable in his time in enough areas to still be notable in ours - Peripitus 13:03, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Was the bookseller/publisher Sams the same as the sheriff Sams? If the page quoted above is correct the publisher died 30 years before the sheriff. Then there is another bookseller William Raymond Sams[5] who died about the same time as the sheriff. Weregerbil 18:37, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
    • Reply to Comment - you are so right. Shows what happens when you rush these things while eating at your desk. Peripitus 22:54, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and expand per above - Varco 16:57, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep a good piece of history. Wiki has the space. It is not a paper encyclopedia, you know. Tyrenius 17:34, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per the previous 3 entires. --Supercoop 19:18, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. In an encyclopedia where pets in Harry Potter get their own articles, this man is notable. DJ Clayworth 19:32, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. The Port Philip Association and Melbourne Cricket Club are both notable institutions in Australia. The Melbourne Cricket Club is notable as it owns the world's biggest cricket ground and one of the worlds biggest stadiums the Melbourne Cricket Ground. I will check whether the Dictionary of Australian Biography has an article on him which will allow for expansion and verification of the article. Capitalistroadster 00:23, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
• Comment I think people are missing the point. This AfD is not challenging the MCB or the PAA, those deserve a page. However one member who helped with it doesn't deserve a page. Especially, when it just states that's all that occured. It's just as easy as putting their name on the original page. Yanksox 00:29, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

• I think this is making too big a deal out of a "page", as if it's a great honour. It's not like a page in a paper encyclopedia. It's just a way of organising information. It's just a few KB. It's more convenient to find it this way and can be easily linked to from other articles mentioning him. Tyrenius 09:04, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

• Keep - Important figure in the history of a major capital city in Australia. In conclusion, notable. -- Synapse 00:37, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. As someone who lives in Melbourne I consider this person to be notable, but the article certainly needs expanding. --Bduke 02:20, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep -- a notable historical figure. The article has come a long way since I first marked it as needing clarfication for reasons of notability. I'm convinced this subject is now worthy of inclusion. -- Longhair 02:45, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, notable person in history, but expand it further. --Terence Ong 04:39, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - this is worth keeping for its historical purposes. It may be obscure but who says the event has to be that well known. Keep. (JROBBO 15:04, 20 May 2006 (UTC))
• Comment I think the notability argument is missing an important point, which is the inclusion of valid historical information. A person does not in themselves have to have any outstanding characteristics to make them worth including, if they are relevant to something which is worth including. This provides context which is necessary to understanding the full picture of an event or time. The "notability" argument is based on the values of contemporary celebrity culture, not in depth research.Tyrenius 09:14, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Figure of historical interest. David Sneek 16:20, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Per multiple arguments presented here. Cnwb 23:45, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Being this man played a vital role in the formation of the city of Melbourne I do not believe he should be deleted. History is important and should be perserved --Kev62nesl 04:08, 22 May 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.