Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Parker (pioneer)


 * 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. - Mailer Diablo 22:41, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

John Parker (pioneer)
Tagged for speedy, but a reasonably plausible assertion of notability is on the talk page, so I am bringing it here. No vote. Stifle (talk) 10:40, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete unless somebody can say how specifically he played a central role in the battle of the Alamo. --David Mestel(Talk) 10:44, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment I see no evidence that he was anywhere near the Alamo, but I don't see how that's relevant. --BrownHairedGirl 10:48, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Apologies, I meant the Fort Parker Massacre. --David Mestel(Talk) 10:59, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Just to play Devil's Advocate for a moment, is being killed in it somehow not playing a central role in it? BigHaz 11:03, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
 * 9 million people were killed in WWI - are you saying that they all warrant an article? --David Mestel(Talk) 11:11, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
 * No, but reading the article on the massacre it seems that it was predominantly the Parker family (and some others who were in the fort at the time) who were killed. BigHaz 11:52, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Fair 'nuff. Change to keep and expand. --David Mestel(Talk) 07:23, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep for now. As the article's creator, I wrote the notability assertion at Talk:John Parker (pioneer), and as per what I wrote there, I think that this AFD is premature. To my mind, notability is clear; the question is whether there is enough material to deserve a separate biographical article, rather than merging the article to Fort Parker massacre. As per my hangon explanation, I'd prefer to tag the article for expansion and revisit it in a month or two if it has not been expanded.  --BrownHairedGirl 10:48, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Perhaps the best bet at the moment would be to merge him with the massacre in question, and then spin him (or indeed his entire family) out into another article if/when someone who knows more about the events turns up and contributes what they know. BigHaz 10:56, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Fort Parker massacre. Right now, there is simply not enough verifiable  information to support an article.  A redirect would take anyone looking at this to a page with much more information on Parker and the events that may make him notable.  No predjudice against the redirect being replaced with a true article about Parker if and when BrownHairedGirl finds more verifiable info to expand the article with.--Isotope23 12:50, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment I don't intend to expand it myself; I proposed tagging it for others to expand. --BrownHairedGirl 13:30, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Merge and REDIRECT as per Isotope23 -- Whpq 12:57, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Notability seems pretty clear to me. I wouldn't be opposed to merging (now, who's willing to do the leg-work, hmm?), although I don't really see the need.  fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 13:37, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Merge with massacre article, as per BigHaz's comments. Subject seems notable, but this article doesn't do anything to establish that notability. I fail to see this one sentence stub encourging other contributors to write more. As part of another article, it might read better and establish notability more authoritatively. It can always be re-created as it's own article, without prejudice, when/if author(s) have interest, time, and more information. Scorpiondollprincess 16:39, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep for now. I agree with the article's creator. There is substantial material available for a separate biographical article, and I will help expand it before the end of August. Fort Parker was a unique and interesting settlement on the fringe of the Comancheria, and an article on the man that settled his clan in such a remote and hostile area, rather than with the other early settlers is merited. His motivations were distinctly different from the other Anglo immigrants and will be expounded on. I'd prefer to tag the article for expansion and give it month or two. --Texan Traveler 07:08, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep per above. --badlydrawnjeff talk 13:18, 5 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.