Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Peter Brown (Mayflower Pilgrim)


 * 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 to delete; default to KEEP. - Philippe 02:53, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Peter Brown (Mayflower Pilgrim)

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Delete purports to be a a geneology for a Mayflower passenger, which stops in the 15th century (the Mayflower sailed much later) then resumes a few hundred years later where finally someone of note comes into being, but alas not the subject of the article. Wholly unreferenced to boot. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 23:11, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. Although it's probably accurate as such things can be, it isn't encyclopedic: Wikipedia is not a repository of miscellaneous genealogical data. --Dhartung | Talk 23:18, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. I am the editor who just created the only worthwhile text for the article. I would love to create a fully functional article on Peter Brown as exists for William Brewster, Myles Standish, Edward Winslow, etc., as I am a SMD member and confirmed descendant of Peter Brown.  The user/editor-contributed genealogy that previously appeared on the article and Dhartung has cited above (RootsWeb is essentially a Wiki) is unrelated to Peter Brown, as even the New England Historical Genealogical Society and the General and Massachusetts Societies of Mayflower Descendants have no confirmed parents of Peter Brown.  At this time, I don't have the time to make a decent article and its current form is little more than a paraphrase of existing encyclopedic information on Brown. Quissett (talk) 14:29, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I would also add that the "person of note" (which, in this case, is used very loosely) is not or was not a descendant of Peter Brown. There were no same-name descendants of Brown as he only had daughters and only two of them had children -- named Tinkham and Snow. Quissett (talk) 14:32, 8 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete I'm afraid that between the lack of references and non-genealogical material, there just is a decent article yet.-- danntm T C 21:10, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong keep. Much has been written about each of the Mayflower passengers. Rewrite as needed, but the subject is definitely notable.--Fabrictramp (talk) 16:26, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Also note that the article has changed substantially since the above delete !votes.
 * Strong Delete. There are plenty of Mayflower passengers without articles. This is a terrible article, it has had a running history of misinformation and vandalism. It should absolutely be deleted.  I see one of the editors above says he wants to rewrite it at a later date, well, good.  But for now, it is a problem between the misinformation and failure to include encyclopedic information. Get rid of it.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by FEastman (talk • contribs) 05:24, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep, this article has changed drastically since deletion nomination. Although, at the time of the nomination, it should definitely have been deleted. Branson03 (talk) 02:47, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. Delete the article -- I agree that the article has been changed since it was nominated, but that doesn't mean it shouldn't be deleted. It's essentially a stub now, it has a long history of vandalism (fake family trees and fake descendants again and again).  It should definitely be deleted. DvonD (talk) 00:58, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
 * weak keep First, thanks very much for Quissett's help. Now as to DvonD's comment it is a stub yes but we generally keeps stubs. The presence of vandalism is not a reason to delete it. My keep is only "weak" because I'm not convinced that the article as it currently stands demonstrates much notability (although part of me might be inclined to say "well, if they were on the mayflower of course they are notable). JoshuaZ (talk) 19:38, 13 May 2008 (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.