Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Edward Davy Wedge

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 of the debate was no consensus. Mailer Diablo 04:54, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Edward Davy Wedge

I had originally tagged this as {{nn-bio}}, but somebody disagreed. Biography of a colonist in Van Diemen's Land, makes no assertion of importance. Delete Kusma (討論) 14:39, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete, non-notable biography. --Terence Ong (恭喜发财) 14:45, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Ruby 15:13, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom (but a nicely-written genealogical piece nevertheless). Given the quantity of articles re this family, can we talk of the thin end of the Wedge? Staffelde 01:10, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. This is a well-written article on a early settler of both Tasmania and Victoria but he doesn't seem to meet WP:BIO. Perhaps the author could set up a Geocities page or similar free pages. Capitalistroadster 02:03, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. I'm going to disagree with the others above. This fellow seems a fairly significant settler in two areas of Australia and the article is a usefull source for someone studying early settlement. That is what pedias are for. --Bduke 02:34, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
    • Could you explain in which way this settler is significant other than by being an early settler? Kusma (討論) 03:47, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
Squatters were fairly significant people. This one was one of the earliest settlers near Werribee, an area South-West of Melbourne that made many people very rich in later years. Bduke 04:08, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per Bduke --kingboyk 03:24, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Capitalistroadster 02:03, 4 February 2006 (UTC)"Capitalistroadster 02:03, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Per Bduke. Cnwb 06:15, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. I believe the notability of the article is not especially evident right now, but that this will become more apparent as the article goes beyond stub status. Donama 07:15, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per Bduke. - Synapse 13:13, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, no notability established. Stifle 01:31, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
    • In Australia, squatters & settlers in the early 1800s were fairly significant people. - Synapse 16:14, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, part of the historic record. Kappa 02:49, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Although it pains me deeply to say it, I don't think this qualifies as encyclopedic. If there were sources cited that demonstrated that this settler was not just one of the settlers, I'd reconsider. We should (and do) have articles that talk about the general case, but I don't see what this article brings to the table. - brenneman(t)(c) 06:38, 6 February 2006 (UTC) This doesn't say explicitly "delete" because it's not a vote and brenneman's opinion is clear.
  • Delete Some sqiatters like John Batman were notable but there were many squatters and they do not all deserve a page. This sounds like a page of family folklore--Porturology 10:20, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - this old history should be preserved Brookie :) - a collector of little round things! (Talk!) 17:12, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep I don't believe that articles on historic figures should be held to the same motability standard as modern vanity bios. Wikipedia is not paper. --Martyman-(talk) 05:14, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - He is still remembered 200 years later as someone whose activities had an impact/taught lessons for those who followed him later, which makes him more notable than, eg an AFL footballer, reality show contestants, local pub musicians, etc. Blnguyen 07:24, 8 February 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.