Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Allan Perley


 * 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. v/r - TP 02:08, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Allan Perley

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Nominating for deletion in accordance with the deletion policy for the following reasons : Based on the points above, particularly 1 and 2, I think this article is of little encyclopedic value and should be deleted. Wikipedia is not a memorial or a family tree. Best, — CharlieEchoTango  — 01:54, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) The subject likely fails the notability criteria, with only one source of substance cited. Furthermore the source is self-published (by a family descendant), which means it cannot be used to establish notability; it could probably be used for verifiability but not if used alone, per #5 of WP:ABOUTSELF.
 * 2) Wikipedia is not a memorial. There is an astonishing amount of non-encyclopedic content in this article, starting with the full transcript of the subject's will, the estate inventory, what the tombstones say, etc.
 * 3) Disregarding the fact that the source cited likely fails WP:RS (per above), there seems to be some amount of original research (unattributed statements), especially in the Settling to section. That all Perleys in North America are descendants of the subject (see Because of Allan Perley) is also a fairly bold claim, which should definitely be attributed to a reliable source.
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions.  — &mdash; alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 02:05, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions.  — &mdash; alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 02:06, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions.  — &mdash; alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 02:06, 21 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete. Wikipedia is not the place for genealogical entries. Biography articles should only be for people with some sort of fame, achievement, or perhaps notoriety. Sources provided are self-published genealogical records. Respectfully, this subject is only significant to his descendants. Cind.   amuse  (Cindy) 02:14, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete, unless it can be shown that this person is something other than just another immigrant. Unfortunately, there are hundreds of such pages created by descendants for their favorite ancestor, just because. The comment on the talk page suggests that the creator's intent is to have the page serve as a forum for the discussion of their ancestor.  If kept, it has to be pared down significantly. Agricolae (talk) 03:25, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Everything here is of purely genealogical interest. The subject's only claim to notability seems to be as the ancestor of a family that does not appear to include any really famous members. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:02, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete Wikipedia is not Ancestry.com. Yunshui (talk) 08:10, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete. Obviously a lot of research has gone into this, but sadly this gentleman appears to be of interest only to genealogists researching his family. Not appropriate for Wikipedia. -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:32, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Userfy Can you userfy this page for me other than deletion. -- JC Talk to me My contributions 01:12, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I am not sure this wouldn't qualify as "Extensive writings and material on topics having virtually no chance whatsoever of being directly useful to the project, its community, or an encyclopedia article," described at WP:UPNO as inappropriate for a User page. Wikipedia is not a free web host. Agricolae (talk) 04:15, 23 September 2011 (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.