Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Charles Augustus Hilton

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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 no consensus defaulting to keep. I'm sorry to bring such a long, thorough debate to such an anticlimactic end, but the discussion below presents a large number of competing, well-reasoned opinions without arriving at a definitive conclusion. --jonny-mt 05:45, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Charles Augustus Hilton

Charles Augustus Hilton (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View log)

Genealogy page for a completely non-notable Civil War soldier. The complete lack of notability makes for a very boring read, but by all means slog through it if you don't believe me. Qworty (talk) 19:07, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

  • Delete. Ordinary soldier who then led an ordinary life. Not notable. --Dhartung | Talk 20:24, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete I reject the nominator's idea that it's a boring read: actually a bit interesting. However, definitely not notable. Nyttend (talk) 20:42, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep - Is having a village named after you a sign of notability? I think it's enough for this man to have his own article. —  scetoaux (T|C) 20:43, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep I also disagree that the article is a "boring read" -- and I also disagree that this man led an "ordinary" life. And the article's sources check out, too. While the notability is borderline, it is still adequate for inclusion here. I would recommend a rewrite, not a deletion. Ecoleetage (talk) 00:53, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment And his notability is ... what, exactly? He certainly does not achieve it through WP:MILMOS#NOTE. --Dhartung | Talk 02:35, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
Response His notability comes through his work as a pastor and an educator, which I picked up in the article. He must have done something notable to have a town named after him (that's quite unusual). As I said, the article needs to be rewritten, not killed. Ecoleetage (talk) 02:58, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
He was non-notable as a soldier. He was non-notable as a pastor. He was non-notable as an educator. He was just a guy who was alive for a while. A town can decide to name itself after a blade of grass, but doing so does not make the blade of grass notable. Qworty (talk) 03:04, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Actually, it would make the blade of grass notable. People don't rename incorporated towns after obscure individuals (let alone obscure blades of grass). Ecoleetage (talk) 03:07, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
    • Well, this incorporated town--officially it's only a "village"--did indeed name itself after a highly obscure individual. This is hardly akin to New York City being named after the Duke of York. This is just a tiny village that named itself after a guy who was non-notable. They have a right to do it, but it doesn't make him notable by WP guidelines. Qworty (talk) 03:15, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
    • Yes, they do in fact name towns after obscure individuals -- people who would not pass WP:BIO. I don't think this minor honor makes them notable, any more than the (more significant) naming of ships after people, especially naval ships, fails to make them notable.--Dhartung | Talk 11:44, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
    • Oh, I don't know. I can’t see the connection between naming battleships after people and naming villages or towns after people. If anything, I would believe the naming of battleships (at least the U.S. variety, which I assume you are referring to) involves a great deal of lobbying and political pandering – something I see as less-than-savory. That didn't appear to be the case in Rev. Hilton's experience. From what I read online in Jeremiah Wadleigh Dearborn’s “A History of the First Century of the Town of Parsonsfield, Maine” (available here: [1]), Rev. Hilton overcame extraordinary odds to achieve prominence in his day. Dearborn praised Hilton in this manner: “Altogether, he ranks among the best men now in the Free Baptist pulpits.” It appears, too, that his prominence was fairly ethereal, hence this interesting discussion. Ecoleetage (talk) 13:07, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
      • It is that (interesting). I may be more familiar with local history publications than you. ;-) Every county in the country probably had a biographical dictionary written in the 1860-1900 period, and every one of them -- while having value -- is full of similar puffery. A successful farmer, for instance, is a "noted agriculturalist". I'd be more impressed if it were, for example, a history of the Free Baptist church. This is a glowing profile of Dearborn himself -- which mentions almost in passing the only thing I think gives him notability, service in the Maine Senate. All the rest is basically personal opinion about how wonderful he is. Today such overt praise is shunned or pigeonholed as public relations spam, but it was just the standard way all these word portraits were composed. The books were considered an integral and necessary part of a town's boosterism. --Dhartung | Talk 21:42, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Response But that argument could be stretched to insist that all books that praise individuals are PR shams. For example, David McCullough's book on John Adams could be considered a revisionist view of one of the less popular presidents in US history. Besides, every county in the U.S. did not have a biographical dictionary written in the 1860-1890 period -- and please refrain from making negative comments on what you perceive as other editors' lack of knowledge. Ecoleetage (talk) 03:01, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete. Local notability isn't the same as the Wikipedia variety. Nothing in the article satisfies the latter. It is sufficient that he's mentioned in his namesake village's article. Clarityfiend (talk) 06:48, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Upon reading the Wikipage on Hilton, New York, and finding that this village was renamed after a certain individual, would it not be beneficial for the reader to also have a biographical page on this person to view? Obviously, I thought it would. The27thmaine (talk) 12:19, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Merge I think the bio of the man could be shortened somewhat and simply included into the town page under a section heading of "Town Namesake" or something. ~ (The Rebel At) ~ 15:04, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete per CSD:A7. Tagged. No assertion of notability. Stifle (talk) 20:13, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
    So nice of you to make a unilateral decision while there was community discussion in progress. I disagree that there was no assertion of notability. I don't believe that a speedy deletion was appropriate. —  scetoaux (T|C) 21:26, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
    Ah, I never noticed that you ORIGINALLY made the speedy deletion, and then restored the page. Orangemike made the more recent speedy deletion. —  scetoaux (T|C) 21:42, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete. Like others, I think he has a led a normal life. Nothing to indicate he is notable. Doctorfluffy (fart in my face) 16:23, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep per the reference found by Ecoleetage that demonstrates he was a notable preacher in his day. As an aside, while having a town named after you may not demonstrate notability, it's a strong indicator of it; that combined with his accomplishments would, even without the reference, make him at least a weak keep for me. —Quasirandom (talk) 17:00, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Merge While the reverend was apparently considered notable by the villagers, I don't think he is Wikipedia notable. I agree with RebelAt-- I see no reason why Hilton,_New_York couldn't include a shortened version of this bio. Macduffman (talk) 17:23, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Both the references and the town being named after him establish notability for me. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 21:45, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:BIO. No credible assertion of notability. Possibly a mention at the hamlet's page. Eusebeus (talk) 23:18, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep - It's not a "boring read" and even if it was, being a "boring read" is not criteria for deleting an article. Having a town named after him and the sources being reliable and independent of the subject, this topic warrants inclusion. --Oakshade (talk) 23:45, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment I'm baffled. I'm constantly battling to save people like Marc Smith from deletion -- people who actually did something notable. Apparently this chap, who seems to be little more than well-liked, is able to be well-liked a century after his death. What did he do? --Dhartung | Talk 09:56, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Merge to Hilton, New York. Having a village or a school named for you is a rare honor, but that, by itself, isn't proof that you were notable except in your own community. For instance, it's surprising how many post offices were named for their first postmaster, and most postmasters would otherwise be non-notable. I agree that the maintainers of the article about the town can make their own judgment about how much to include about Mr. Hilton. Mandsford (talk) 15:47, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment. Indeed, my city was named after the first postmaster -- a tavern owner/ferry operator who used a cigar box for the mail -- because the post office declined his nominated name of Black Hawk (he actually camped here), as there was another town in Wisconsin Territory that already had the name (it's now in Iowa). The name was decreed by Amos Kendall, Postmaster-General, and as such was entirely arbitrary. --Dhartung | Talk 07:02, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
Response The history of Janesville, Wisconsin, is not the subject of this debate, and the experience in naming that town is not revelant to this discussion. Please stick to the facts of Rev. Hilton's perceived notability. Ecoleetage (talk) 12:04, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
Comment Please present some demonstrated notability. --Dhartung | Talk 17:31, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep "Boring" is insufficient reason to delete. Colonel Warden (talk) 16:55, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete no evidence of significant coverage by reliable secondary sources that would establish the notability of the subject. Guest9999 (talk) 20:08, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Comment. Just curious as to whether you (or others arguing same) are basing your comment on the lack of Internet sources. Not everyone's going to have webpages on them. 23skidoo (talk) 12:58, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
      • Comment I, for one, am basing my argument on the fact that he never did anything of significance. If he did, I invite you to show it to us. --Dhartung | Talk 17:31, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
  • My argument is based on the fact that I do not think that the required sourcing (web or otherwise) has been provided to establish the notability of the subject and I do not believe that such sources are likely to exist based on the limited sources which have been presented and the views of other editors above. If evidence of significant coverage by reliable sources does come to light during the course of the discussion I will strike my vote (although if my argument is disproved I doubt any closing admin would hold it in any regard anyway). Guest9999 (talk) 18:04, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Weak keep. Having a town named after you is significant, plus there are sources here. The problem (as I indicate in my comment above) is the fact there aren't a lot of web sources available. I say weak because it's possible the century old sources are bogus; if that can be proven, then I have no objection to the article being renominated at a later date. 23skidoo (talk) 12:58, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment Why would the century old sources be bogus, particularly on someone who was non-controversial as Rev. Hilton?Ecoleetage (talk) 13:59, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
  • I confess I find Wikipedia's culture of priveledging online sources over print sources a little odd. Even aside from that it biases the encyclopedia towards recentism, even among recent work, the internet has major holes in its scholarly coverage. —Quasirandom (talk) 19:55, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment It isn't odd so much as one form of systemic bias. Similarly American topics and sources dominate Wikipedia, though this is changing as more non-American editors participate. In this case I don't consider anything dubious about the sources per se, it's what they (fail to) say. They're just no more indicative of notability than being written up in a local newspaper. --Dhartung | Talk 20:17, 5 May 2008 (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.