Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Coert Van Voorhees


 * 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 no consensus. Spartaz Humbug! 07:15, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Coert Van Voorhees

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Contested PROD. Aside from having existed there is no indication this person meets WP:BIO in any way, and notability is not inherited. § FreeRangeFrog croak 01:20, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete. Looks like the article was created by a descendant but Wikipedia is not a genealogy site. Sorry Matt, if it was for your school project. &mdash; RHaworth (talk · contribs) 11:56, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete as not notable, per nomination. ScrapIronIV (talk) 15:21, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:34, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:34, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:35, 9 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep, and let's try not to be snide to new users. True enough that WP:NOTINHERITED.  It is measured by how many reliable, secondary sources cover a topic.  Type Coert Van Vorhees into a search of books or of journals of genealogy or of the history of New York and New Amsterdam.  There is very significant coverage of his life, immigration, career, and progenitive prowess.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:21, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Regardless to the fact that I am a descendant, Coert Van Voorhees was significant in the founding of Flatlands, New York. Deleting this page would be a mistake- Wikipedia, an encyclopedia, Coert Van Voorhees deserves to be on this website as much as anyone else. MattVoorhees15 (talk) 20:27, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete Fails WP:GNG Theroadislong (talk) 20:31, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
 * comment article needs improvement. but merely because it was written as a kind of fan page by a descendant (rookie editor) it would be wrong to ignore the large number of WP:RS (books, articles) covering this and other early Dutch settlers in considerable detail.  Coverage confers notability.  as per  WP:GNGE.M.Gregory (talk) 22:22, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment added a 2014 newspaper genealogy column in which he appears, a handful of the 19th and 20th century biographical compendia, historical compendia and genealogy books in which biographies of him were published(sometimes with lists of descendents, other times with details of documents, land deeds he signed, colonial assemblies in which he was a representative, and a 2006 history of Brooklyn, New York University Press, in which he appears for having left his name on a place in modern Brooklyn. In sum, he lived in the 17th century and every scrap of data about his life was searched out and published during a period of intense interest in colonial history and in genealogy in the 19th and early 20th century.  Today these details are sought out, published and republished on multiple genealogy websites, at least some of which can be considered reliable.  He passes WP:GNG.  We need to be careful to remember that 19th books have weight in conferring notability.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:59, 10 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep Ordinarily, an article on an obscure figure written by a descendant would not merit inclusion, but van Voorhees' participation in the Landtdag of 10 April 1664 would almost certainly have made him a notable figure then and, in my mind, is what keeps him notable today. schetm (talk) 15:01, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment Assuming that is true, then I would change my opinion; however, it must be included. We don't keep unencyclopedic entries without sources.  If the source is included before a decision is made, then that works.  If it isn't, then his notability is neither asserted nor established in the article, which is a requirement to maintain the entry. ScrapIronIV (talk) 17:58, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Notability is most certainly asserted in the very claim of participation in the assembly, and is backed up on page 379 of this source, which was already included in the article. I have added an additional citation of pages 10-11 of this book. schetm (talk) 23:56, 10 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep as per my comment above and User:Schetm.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:13, 16 April 2015 (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.