Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/George Gill Green

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 keep. — Mar. 3, '06 [10:04] <freakofnurxture|talk>

[edit] George Gill Green

article does not assert why this person warrants inclusion. delete as non-notable. Batman2005 17:06, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep, published author w/other minor but valid claims to notability. Tagged for deletion four minutes after author began writing it, and well before article was completed. Monicasdude 19:45, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep However, this is a good example of why you should use the Sandbox and not upload a new article until it is functionally complete. --Hetar 21:10, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete It's quite an interesting article but neither the it nor Google give much evidence of notability. Dlyons493 Talk 20:52, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep A notable and interesting article about an early pioneer in patent medicine and builder of a structure on the National Register. I think this is a cardinal example of an itchy AfD finger. Why do people expect perfect articles to sprout forth from the earth. Alansohn 22:20, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment - perhaps if the companies/buildings he created/built were explained slightly further in-depth, it would show a greater evidence of notability. AndyZ 23:03, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - a colonel is a pretty high rank and he did some other stuff?? For Dlyons493, how can you expect google hits for a 19th century army officer??!?!?.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 01:12, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment what I said was that the hits I found didn't show notability - that relates to their content, not their number. Dlyons493 Talk
  • Keep per Monicasdude. He might just not be notable enough; but the article seems to be verifiable in print (haven't checked this). squell 15:38, 24 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.