Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Mould


 * 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 speedy delete per A7 while AFD was in progress. --Slgr @ ndson (page - messages - contribs) 21:08, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

John Mould
I realize that historical subjects are difficult (WP:N), but this man, per the information given in the article, does not seem to have done anything that established notability per WP:BIO. The external link given is a run-of-the-mill lineage site. Crystallina 16:32, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

John Mould is a direct descendant of Sir Richard Pargitor of Greatworth, Northamptonshire England mentioned in the 1564 Visitations of Northamptonshire.

John's family also ties into the line of Sir Francis Willoughby of Wollaton, England - Knight

John Mould's wife Mary Ann Beeman is a documented, proven and accepted descendant of William White - Pilgrim of the Mayflower.
 * Delete - very few incoming links, WP is not a genealogy site. I don't see anything that makes this person in particular notable. No categories also. &mdash; RevRagnarok  Talk Contrib 17:32, 19 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete - You can see by my user page that I am a genealogist. And I am certainly an inclusionist.  However other then his umpteenth ancestors, this guy is not notable.  I am also a descendent of the Willoughby's that doesn't make me notable in itself. Wjhonson 17:54, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Dead Presidents & British royalty should not be the only individuals history included on Wikipedia in my opinion. I have been working on adding color to this article, in addition to categories and additional relevant links. Please notice that there are significant notes, maps, and historical information and documentation on the main site dedicated to this individual. There is nothing trivial about the amount of research and organization spent regarding this individual. Thanks in advance for your reconsideration in this matter. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LvBohemian (talk • contribs)
 * Delete —  WP:NOT a geneology site. JChap2007 18:36, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete . Nothing in the article even indicates what the subject's occupation was. Being an immigrant, a father, a Freemason, a member of a church, or the brother of a Civil War veteran are not claims to notability under the biographical criteria. Nor is being a descendant of other people who themselves are really not that well-known. In fact, as the article currently stands, it could be speedily deleted under the criteria for speedy deletion, specifically criterion A7. I would urge the supporters of this article to look at other biographical articles for guidance and restructure the article accordingly to explain Mr. Mould's claim to notability beginning in the first sentence, because I don't know what it is. --Metropolitan90 18:41, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Please reconsiderDo not delete based on modern tests Don't delete historical persons based on modern tests Persons who were of note in their time and place are marked based on the modern test of "I can't find information about them online". Most historical persons of note, in their time, do not have information online, because Google is not the repository of all knowledge. An online search, for historical persons of note, is biased toward modern persons, therefore should not be the criteria for determination of notability.

Existing rules are sufficient The no original research rule keeps out most of what is unencyclopedic. Notability is not needed as long as the verifiability rules are strictly applied.


 * Comment - I am well aware of that rule, since *I* wrote it. But what has THIS man done, in his OWN life that makes him notable?  Was he the first sheep farmer in Manitoba?  Did he revolutionize the printing of phamplets on contraception?  Was he the first black lesbian elected official in Paraguay?  So far your article is basically an article that could be writen about any person who lived in the 19th century.  I'm not seeing anything that makes him stand out from his neighbors. Wjhonson 19:09, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Delete as not notable. Another question might be whether he owned land that was subsequently used for some notable purpose. To be fair, the article does identify him as a mason (someone who builds structures with stone and brick, rather than a Freemason, which he was as well) by occupation, but only in the second-last paragraph. This is what journalists call "burying your lede". TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 19:45, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Delete per notability concerns. I'm sure a lot of effort went into this research, but there's no (stated) reason this person deserves an encyclopedia article.  &middot; rodii &middot;  20:13, 19 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment John Mould and his brother Thomas were the first individuals of their particular surname in the entire state of New York to be naturalized as U.S. Citizens. John Mould was a well-known and respected Pioneer of Ballston Spa, Saratoga County, New York. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.210.153.157 (talk • contribs)
 * Speedy delete. Being one of the first persons of one's surname to be naturalized as a citizen in a particular state is not a claim to notability. Consider that there must be at least 1 million different surnames in the United States, and then multiply that by 50 states. Nor is being a stonemason a claim to notability. Also, he could not have been a pioneer of a town incorporated more than 30 years before he arrived in the United States. --Metropolitan90 20:34, 19 August 2006 (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.