Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Julius Soubise


 * 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 keep, closing early per WP:SNOW - article has been expanded, no other arguments to delete. --Core desat  21:02, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Julius Soubise

 * - (View AfD) (View log)

Just because you are dead, doesn't make you encyclopedic. If there were some sort of hook regarding this guy, were he the subject of a book, or did something outstanding, I wouldn't nominate. But as it is, it seems a violation of WP:BIO Wehwalt 01:27, 16 January 2007 (UTC) (UTC) Perhaps it might have been better to look for sources rather than listing for deletion. DGG 18:40, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Speedy Delete - Fails WP:BIO. Mkdw talk 04:04, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Article has been greatly expanded since my vote. Mkdw talk 08:35, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep and cleanup, I disagree that he is non-notable. That he, a former slave, rose to a prominent position in British society is notable, and the references seem pretty good.  Just because he didn't write poetry like Phyllis Wheatley doesn't mean he isn't notable.-- Dmz5  *Edits**Talk* 05:27, 16 January 2007 (UTC) [I moved my !vote above the comment below because it was here before the comment was made). (it's silly to keep doing this, but I !voted keep based on the original version, not the revamped one)
 * REVAMP I carried out a major revamp of the article at 05:17 UTC - corrections, rewrite and search for references. Votes below this line refer to the new version of the article. It's late here. I'll do some more cleanup later Bwithh 05:44, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep per above. -P4k 05:31, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep after the revamp Bwithh 05:44, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep As it stands now, the article clearly shows that he is a verifiably notable historical figure. --The Way 06:25, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep as revised and kudos to Bwithh!!  SkierRMH, 06:38, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Now that it has been revised, I'll withdraw the nomination, if I may.--Wehwalt 11:43, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Now it has sources it meets WP:BIO, still think it could do with more of a cleanup however Ryan Postlethwaite See the mess I've created or let's have banter 12:40, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep - sounds like he knew quite a number of notable people in this historical period, and as a freed slave who became prominent in society in this period, he is intrinsically notable. Walton monarchist89 13:24, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep and Cleanup. Reasonable article subject and seems to pass WP:BIO, however at present all the references link to Google Books searches.  I'm pretty sure that's not how it's supposed to be, although it might be a temporary placeholder until real references can be put in.  Definitely doesn't seem to be a deletion case. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  14:08, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep but wikify Alf photoman 17:41, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep per above. Big  top  18:28, 16 January 2007
 * keepHe's a significant historical figure, and several of us will be adding references. Just because you're dead doesnt make you non-notable.
 * Keep notable  Hut   8.5   18:57, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Has good references, clearly meets WP:BIO. Interesting dude. Edison 20:05, 16 January 2007 (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.