Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Thursday October Christian

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Thursday October Christian was proposed for deletion. This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was keep

[edit] Thursday October Christian

Reason why I recommended this article:

While I enjoy the story and history of the Mutiny on the Bounty , I cannot see this article as being encyclopedic, and the subject of the article is not notable. It is at best an example of fame (or notability) by association. Certainly, his father, Fletcher Christian, was famous as this mutiny is regarded with grave consideration in the British Navy, but articles on his children—just because they were his children—is a bit much. The subject of this article receives as much a mention on the Mutiny on the Bounty (history) article as he does here. There is scarcely little else in the corpus of history to talk about this individual than to mention him as a footnote to his father. This article can only serve a genealogical purpose—and Wikipedia is not a genealogical database. —ExplorerCDT 21:58, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

(I've seen how unruly some of these discussions are, so I'm organzing this, as follows...)

  • I have added a lot more historical info. The article is now no longer a stub. Can you guys please reconsider your votes in view of this? I hope I've shown that the view that there is "little else ... to talk about this individual" is just not true. GeorgeStepanek 21:48, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)
    • Still delete for me. All you've done is write a genealogical obituary about some famous guy's insignificant offspring and that he married some other guy's older woman, and got a ring from some guy named Ned. Big deal. Glorified genealogy. Nothing more. —ExplorerCDT 22:10, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)
      • Have struck this word out in case it might be interpreted as voting twice by the same individual. GeorgeStepanek 22:34, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)
        • Don't you dare edit my comments. —ExplorerCDT 02:14, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)
          • I apologise for doing so. On reflection, there is not the potential for confusion that I though there was. Your layout for the voting is very clear. GeorgeStepanek 04:12, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Votes to Delete:

  • Delete for the reasons I listed above. —ExplorerCDT 21:58, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete I agree with ExplorerCDT's every word. I second the motion for deletion. --Iglesias 19:42, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Non-notable person. Delete. RickK 05:28, Nov 23, 2004 (UTC)
"One measure of achievement is whether someone has been featured in several external sources (either online or offline)." R.M.Ballantyne, Charles Dickens and Mark Twain all wrote about him. Does that not suffice? Why is he any less significant than (say) Pocahontas? Or is she more significant because she's part of America's history, rather than that of the South Pacific? GeorgeStepanek 01:32, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Mutiny on the Bounty (history). That's what we do with relationship fame. Geogre 15:18, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete or redirect - He was born to someone famous. What then? -- Cyrius|✎
  • Delete. Got born. *applause* Nothing else to report. For reason given by Dpbsmith this article breaches the policy. You could mention his being born in the island's history but anything else is just so much filler.Dr Zen 00:37, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)
    • does your agreement with Dpbsmith share his change of opinion? Alkivar 07:08, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Not notable on his own. Mention in his dad's article if need be. --Improv 06:59, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Votes to Keep:

  • Keep I will agree with the person who wrote the above paragraph/article that Wikipedia is not a genealogical database, although, one must consider the fact that giving the name of one family member would not make Wikipedia a good genealogical database, but a great encyclopedia. —headplatypus 23:33, 20 Nov 2004 ()
    • User's only edits are to this page. RickK 05:28, Nov 23, 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep It was been noted that the small article on Thursday October Christian simply can serve little more than a notice of association, and not much else. Small articles do not fit wikip
    • Anon votes are not counted.
  • Keep. He is notable in that he was the first child born on the island, and is mentioned in histories for precisely this. His name was changed from Friday when they discovered that their calender was one day out. His house is the oldest building still standing on the island. Or at least it was, until it was demolished on 1 Mar 2004. At age sixteen he married Teraura, who was past 30 then, and had been Edward Young’s original consort. And there is more... GeorgeStepanek 09:12, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)
    • Genealogy doesn't belong on wikipedia. He accomplished nothing. If we're going to establish notability by the first born wherever, we might as well have an article for Alice Martin, the first born of the Mayflower crowd...who later became the first woman executed in America (in 1648 for killing her kids in a moment of post-partum rage) Where does it end? The first person in podunk towns in the American west? —ExplorerCDT 22:06, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. At the moment, it's only a stub, and some people are pulling the trigger a might fast. Looks like it has some potential --Calton 11:22, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)
    • Deletion is not an irrevocable act. Nothing about deleting a substub does anything to prevent anyone from writing a real article at any time. When there isn't enough information for an article, the information should go into other articles. The natural evolution of something like this would be to start out as a footnote to Fletcher Christian and become an article if and only if it is clear that there is a substantial amount of encyclopedic information about Thursday October Christian.
    • Of course deletion isn't irrevocable -- but it means that some poor sod has to 1) conceive of the idea again; and 2) rewrite it from scratch. Why make article creation harder?
  • Keep jguk 11:43, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep as it stands. Article acts as a fat redirect to Fletcher Christian, which is appropriate. Wile E. Heresiarch 17:12, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • It's worth remembering that the historical significance of Fletcher Christian Sr. isn't so much that he mutinied, it's the resulting settlement of Pitcairn (which is, IIRC, the smallest of the actively populated post-colonial territories... and in the news lately). That aside, I'd vote keep; it's likely expandable and seems notable enough to me. Shimgray 18:42, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)
    • Then why not have it as a note on the Pitcairn Island page? After all, it's not there. —ExplorerCDT 22:06, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep the expaneded version. This is much more encyclopedial than many articles her ein my oppinion. Jeltz 22:08, 2004 Nov 28 (UTC)
  • Keep. He was a major figure on Pitcairn. If we adopt a standard of deleting people who are (so-called) "famous by association," the children and wives of many politicians and performers are out. --Sesel 22:36, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Well George, you've done a fantastic job. I'm still a little doubtful on notability, but you've definitely pushed it far enough to give you the benefit of the doubt. Changing my vote to keep. Securiger
  • Well, that answers my question. Keep. -- Cyrius|✎ 02:18, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep, in the strongest possible terms. Everyking 02:31, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep: DCEdwards1966 02:40, Nov 29, 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep, I see absolutely no reason to remove this well researched historical entry. --[[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway Talk ]] 03:32, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep, simple, interesting, well-researched and referenced. It's not like he's taking up space in a paper encyclopedia and keeping something else out. I'm glad I read it; maybe most people wouldn't care, but I'm know I'm not alone in the universe. [[User:CatherineMunro|Catherine\talk]] 04:27, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep, seems strange wiki will keep any professor regardless of impact because of his profession, yet the subject these professors spend years researching arent valid. Alkivar 03:38, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep, of historical significance. Zerbey 03:39, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep, of historical significance. Ambi 03:50, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep it. —[[User:Radman1|RaD Man (talk)]] 04:57, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep, of historical significance. --jpgordon{gab} 07:33, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. There's no good reason to axe this. If fame by association isn't enough, we're going to have to delete much more. [[User:MacGyverMagic|Mgm|(talk)]] 09:05, Nov 29, 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. It's now an interesting article - and I'd vote keep for a decent article on Alice Martin as well. --G Rutter 10:08, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. He has some notability in history. Dbiv 13:52, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep in present form. Clever tour de force, or, let me not be so backhanded, nice work. The topic is borderline, but the high quality of the article itself pushes it onto the "keep" side of the border for me. Yes, I'm eating my words about "no potential to become encyclopedic." (The idea of nominating this as a featured article is IMHO plain nutty, however). [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 17:38, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep, historically notable. [[User:GRider|GRider\talk]] 20:05, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep, interesting article, minor historical significance.-gadfium 01:01, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep, interesting read. Mackensen (talk) 06:12, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep, since it's historicly accurate, there is no reason to delete the article! -- Crevaner 10:17, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep - As long as it remains accurate, it belongs on wikipedia. -- Old Right 11:33, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Dude... how is this not a keep? Extreme keep! --L33tminion | (talk) 23:40, Dec 3, 2004 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep. Son of Fletcher Christian, should be kept. A lot of information, which tells about the history and development of Pitcairn.~User:Chan Han Xiang
  • Keep. Pitcairn Island is always of interest; this dude's name, his parentage, his marriage (of necessity to someone outside his age group because of the small population), etc. all illustrate the early years of Pitcairn's history. A2Kafir 04:58, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. I'd vote for delete too if all the article said was "son of Fletcher Christian," but this has far more. Postdlf 05:02, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Votes to Abstain:

Other Votes:

Comments:

  • Um, I don't think this was ever listed. Lost/widowed VfD. Cool Hand Luke 08:33, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Comment: Could you two, who voted Keep, say even one reason why Thursday October Christian is notable or encyclopedic. That is, aside from his (I assume it's a he) famous father. Also, why should this person merit an article? Is not a one line mention (about the size of this article's content) already on the Fletcher Christian and Mutiny on the Bounty articles sufficient?
I ask this because I have read your messages several times now and still can't see any sense behind your voting Keep. No reasoning, on your part, for why the person is notable or encyclopedic, or any attempt to defend the merits of his inclusion as a free-standing article.
I fear that you're voting keep just for the sake of voting keep, something I've seen all too often in the VfD column—people who can't bear to see even an insignificant article dispatched back to its rightful place in obscure mediocrity. And by the way, the last, anonymous Keep vote sounds more like a reason for voting Delete. —ExplorerCDT 05:08, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Comment: this guy is a historical figure. OK, he's not as famous as his father, but he's in the history books all the same. In two minutes on the Internet I found half a dozen interesting facts about him. I'm sure there's more: this kind of information is better represented in books than the Internet. He was undoubtably a significant figure in the founding of a nation. Compare that to the amount of fancruft there is in Wikipedia about teen-pop 'celebrities' who will be utterly forgotten in 10 years time, and I think you should cut this guy some slack. To paraphrase Yoda, "in two hundred years time, look this good you will not." GeorgeStepanek 10:45, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)
    • Just because he gets passing reference in a book, he's automatically a historical figure? He's mentioned 5 times in Caroline Alexander's The Bounty. In your mode of bad sentence structure: That does not a historical figure make, but does a pandora's box of insignificant people open. (Viking, 2003 ISBN 067003133X) —ExplorerCDT 22:06, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like other '/delete' pages is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion or on the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.