Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Oliver Wilson

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 delete. MBisanz ^talk 00:21, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

John Oliver Wilson

John Oliver Wilson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The page contains no assertion or evidence of historical or other significance, and I couldn't find any either. The cited source may confirm his existence, but certainly nothing to rise to the level of WP:GNG. Article was created by apparent SPA account, User:Johnwilsonisbae. Speedy deletion challenged on the basis that "Fighting in several notable battles is significant." Mojo Hand (talk) 16:57, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Delete per WP:BASIC. Like Russell's teapot, perhaps there is significant coverage in period print sources, but, based on the article, I doubt it. I don't have access to the print source given in the article, but I assume it's WP:ROUTINE and may has reliability problems as well (per WP:SELFPUBLISH, a will or similar document, even one reprinted in a governmental index, is not going to be a reliable source for its subject's life accomplishments).  Rebbing  17:35, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

• Delete: "Fighting in several notable battles is significant" is the sort of garbage rationale worthy of a trout slap. By that token, one can reasonably claim that soldiers in most armies in wartime all qualify, millions upon millions. Obvious GNG fail. Ravenswing 07:03, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
• Delete per all of the above. Not surprisingly, there's nothing out there about this guy, just some author with the same name. Clarityfiend (talk) 02:35, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
• Delete as I myself have improved these types of articles but this one is still particularly questionable for solid independent notability. SwisterTwister talk 05:03, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
• Delete, should have been speedied. Bishonen | talk 18:57, 7 April 2016 (UTC).

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:56, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:56, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:56, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:07, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

• Delete clearly NN. WE cannot have an article on every veteran, whom somebody comes up with in their family history research. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:09, 10 April 2016 (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.