Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/George W. Washington


 * 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. Yunshui 雲 水 08:23, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

George W. Washington

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Totally unsourced, but non-notable even if true. Being a delegate to a party national convention is not sufficient to pass WP:NPOL. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:24, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 06:51, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Alabama-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 06:51, 12 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Speedy delete Shouldn't really be on Wikipedia Mustapha dare (talk) 09:54, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Procedural note. This article started as a redirect in 2005; I think I was probably cleaning up page-move vandalism. It was converted into an article (not by me) in 2013. Later that year it was proposed for deletion; which was summarily rejected by the author. The article had been misidentified as that of a living person and thus subject to BLPPROD. Probably shouldn't be considered a valid PROD under the circumstances. Mackensen (talk) 11:24, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I can find no documentation of this person other than a name on a list of conventional delegates. This person seems not to be a docummented historical figure.  Clearly, this is not an alternative name for George Washington, and that almost certainly was page move vandalism.  Equally clearly, though, we don't need the administrator deletion tool in order to redirect to Washington Bottom Farm, who came up several times when I looked for anything about the convention delegate. Uncle G (talk) 13:04, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Given that, I am in favor of redirecting per Uncle G. Beyond My Ken (talk) 15:38, 12 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Thanks to Mackensen for notifying me of this discussion. I think this guy is pretty non-notable. I thought I'd be able to find more on him when I created the stub, but I didn't. Deleting it makes sense to me. --Coemgenus (talk) 15:11, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete Unsourced. This George W. Washington is associated with Alabama, the Washington Bottom Farm is associated with Virginia/West Virginia. Better to delete the underlying material and if there is a desire, create a new redirect to Washington Bottom Farm. --Enos733 (talk) 16:49, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Buut by redirecting, there would no longer be a reference to the Alabama person, typing in "George W .Washington" would simply take you to the VA/WVA person. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:39, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
 * My understanding is that a straight redirect retains the history of the underlying page. --Enos733 (talk) 18:14, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Sure, but that's the ''history, not the article that the public sees. Who cares if they look under the carpet?  What's there isn't unfit for public viewing, it's simply not notable. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:36, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
 * There's no reason here to delete the edit history before enacting a redirect. Uncle G (talk) 07:26, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete - This person is pretty non-notable. - MA Javadi (talk) 17:06, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete and redirect to Washington Bottom Farm. The two topics are not related so deleting before making the redirect sounds more reasonable. FoxyGrampa75 (talk) 01:53, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
 * But isn't more reasonable, redirects being enacted this way every day without the involvement of deletion at all, and is not supported by Project:deletion policy. There has to be some reason for removing the edit history.  Uncle G (talk) 10:31, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
 * If the edit history pertains to a completely different person than the redirect is being repurposed to represent, then that's a solid and airtight reason for deleting the edit history first. But at any rate, it is not actually true that the onus is always on the "delete and then recreate a redirect" arguers to demonstrate a reason for removing the edit history; Wikipedia does not have an invariable rule that redirect-without-deletion is necessarily preferred over delete-and-then-recreate-a-redirect, but rather it's completely contextual to the situation at hand. In a case like this, where the edit history and the redirect target represent two completely different people who merely happened to have the same name, the onus is on the "redirect without deletion" arguers to demonstrate a reason why there would be any value in retaining the edit history. Bearcat (talk) 21:14, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete. Simply having been a delegate to a political party convention is not in and of itself a notability criterion, and this article cites exactly no reliable sources. Bearcat (talk) 16:33, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete delegates to political conventions are not default notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:31, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete Delegates to conventions are not inherently notable per WP:NPOL. Bkissin (talk) 17:49, 17 September 2019 (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.