Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Johann Friedrich Lübbering


 * 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 redirect to Luebbering, Missouri.  MBisanz  talk 23:03, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Johann Friedrich Lübbering

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Delete: Subject was the postmaster of an unincorporated community. Surely this wasn't a notable enough position to merit a Wikipedia article. – Gilliam (talk) 03:56, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete Being a postmaster is not a plausible claim of notability. I had an uncle who was a World War II veteran, a small town race car driver, and later the postmaster of a much larger town than this. He was a wonderful guy, but not notable enough for a Wikipedia biography. Cullen328  Let's discuss it  06:28, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Do not Delete Deleting the article would delete yet another piece of American history. I stand by my argumentation of 2009; "[…] The US is a country of immigrants. […] Mostly, reasons are not known - In this case, we know that a series of famines forced the Luebbering family to emigrate, and settle at a place which was named after them. JFL fought for the union and the State of Mississippi. He left the army a 2nd lieutenant - he helped make the US big, he is what the US stands for, a self made man who fights for what he believes is right .... He should not get deleted, even though the article is a little too genealogical. I am hoping for more editors to complete it." He was the first postmaster in the hamlet which was later named after him. Back in 2009, the article also received the blessing and support of the The State Historical Society of Missouri. I do not believe this article should be deleted for the reasons mentioned above. Wikipedia is also about heritage. This window into something long gone offers an opportunity for generations to learn about their local history. Deleting this article deprives future generations of exactly this. I plead for "not delete". LordFarrow (talk) 18:38, 2 October 2016 (UTC)LordFarrow


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America1000 08:26, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. North America1000 08:26, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. North America1000 08:26, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

Keep A person who had a hamlet after himself will have been at the time of his life the type of person we consider 'notable' in the wikisense as this event alone would have been reported on in the wider area. This does not compare with the postmaster mentioned above of ca 80 years later. Strangely enough in 1888 we had no internet so we won't have easy access to papers at the time. Agathoclea (talk) 08:46, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Keep I think some miss the point. It is not on the basis that he is an immigrant, nor a postmaster, nor a union veteran, nor even a military officer, but upon the fact that his legacy survives him when the hamlet named after him, which exists to this day, is spoken. Based on the fact that a town was named after him, he becomes notable. Jsniessen (talk) 14:15, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete having a small, unincoprorated place named after you is not grounds for being considered notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:27, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Argumentative, but since the town is notable, the topic and the edit history stay, notable or not, as per our policies. Unscintillating (talk) 06:00, 9 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Wrong forum or keep Notability is not a deletion argument here, so the discussion should be taken to the forum identified by WP:Deletion policy for such discussions.  Unscintillating (talk) 06:00, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
 * , I'm curious. How is AfD the wrong forum for deleting an article? And what forum should this have been taken to? --Lemongirl942 (talk) 14:05, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   12:42, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment, at just over 50 words the community of Luebbering, Missouri needs all the help it can get, if this was deleted a paragraph could be added there. Coolabahapple (talk) 16:04, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete. The community named for this person, Luebbering, Missouri, seems to have a limited existence at best, given that it is not incorporated nor is a census-designated place. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 16:17, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep I think with all things added together, he just about squeezes through WP:GNG. However, WP:MERCY, WP:VALUABLE and WP:HARDWORK are not arguments. Also is the grandfather of an Olympic athelete, as mentioned on his article — Preceding unsigned comment added by JohnTombs48 (talk • contribs) 16:59, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:49, 12 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Merge a brief summary to Luebbering, Missouri. The man's main claim to fame appears to be being a pstmaster, which is surely a case of bring NN.  However it will be worth the article on the place explaining briefly the source of its name.  Peterkingiron (talk) 18:18, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete This smells like a vanity project to me. I don't see general notability and notability is not inherited from a town or a descendant or anything else. I promise you new editors that selfishly using Wikipedia for your pet project is just going to create hostility here. Chris Troutman  ( talk ) 22:04, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Redirect. having a hamlet named after oneself is meaningless for notability --, but it is still apppropriate to have a redirect.  DGG ( talk ) 02:02, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Redirect Being the first postmaster of a hamlet doesn't make a subject notable. At best this is a BIO1E. Personally I would have liked this to be deleted. However, I am willing to go with a redirect. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 10:36, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete There is not enough to pass general notability requirements. There appears to be sock puppet-like arguments here in order to "help" the town. This is not the purpose of Wikipedia. Delta13C (talk) 12:59, 19 October 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.