Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Philip Armstrong Elliott


 * 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 delete. Kurykh (talk) 04:49, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Philip Armstrong Elliott

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This article should be deleted as it fails WP:GNG as the only coverage this subject gets (even in WP:BEFORE searches) is in genealogy sites which is not significant. -KAP03(Talk &bull;&#32;Contributions) 05:00, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 05:32, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Quebec-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 05:32, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:15, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:15, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:15, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:15, 19 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Well, the nominator is flatly wrong that the "onlycoverage this subject gets... is in genealogy sites." He is mentioned in several published books about Trudeau. I'm not saying that's enough, he certainly does not seem to be independently notable -- just that the statement is incorrect. That said, the Trudeaus did come from wealthy parentage, and Elliott did not live that long ago. May be possible to find newspaper coverage of him from the period -- I don't know. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:20, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete I encourage Shawn in Montreal to produce these "several published books" because I didn't see them in Google search; I think KAP03 is exactly right. I don't see a claim of notability though I was able to find this patent from 1907 which may involve this subject. Again, there's no general notability here. Chris Troutman  ( talk ) 18:47, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
 * If you want to see the books, click on the "books" link in the Afd template. The top two results in particular. Again, I'm not claiming these passing mentions make him notable. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:06, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete -- no notability established nor found. Article consists mostly of irrelevant genealogical details (who was of which religion, etc). K.e.coffman (talk) 03:33, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Yep. Even just a few years ago we still had the ability to search Montreal newspaper archives from the period -- I recall because it had been a help to me in saving other historical bio articles from the era. But unless someone comes along with better search access than I to papers of the period -- which is to say, any search capacity at all, it seems -- there's no way of knowing the level of coverage this "prominent Scots-Quebecer entrepreneur" might have received, in his day. Too bad. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:01, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't see anything on newspapers.com or genealogybank that is clearly about this Philip Elliott (using various spellings). Searching with no middle name or initial, there was a Philip Elliot who assaulted an actress named Violet Anderson in Montreal in 1926, but I'm pretty sure it is not the same individual. Smmurphy(Talk) 21:47, 20 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete. There's certainly a valid potential claim of notability here ("prominent entrepreneur"), but it's not one that can stand referenced only to a user-generated family tree on geni.com. It's also not an automatic inclusion freebie in the absence of any substance about his business activities, and neither does he inherit an automatic inclusion freebie just for being an ancestor of PET and JT. No prejudice against recreation in the future if somebody actually can track down a viable claim of notability and the quality of sourcing necessary to support it, but I haven't been able to find anything with the resources available to me. Bearcat (talk) 18:21, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
 * sources  Your source, monsieur, an article in the Ottawa Citizen "A proud Scot who loved his mother: Trudeau belonged to the Elliot Clan Society and paid his fees throughout the years. Julia Elliott reports" 3 October 2000 describing Pierre Trudeau with the this ancestry.  Article si written by a Julia Elliot, a self described member of the "Eliot Clan Society" (here is Trudeau's section under "Famous Eliots" on the Society's page ) who recalls Trudeau attending a Clan meetings "fall evening in 1984 at Nepean's Cedarhill Golf and Country Club".   Canadians don't appear to have the sort of genealogists who track down every ancestor of every President, but this looks real and if it was it would seem to me that some Pure laine would have written this up in the Francophone press in the 70s or 80s.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:44, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
 * That source clearly falls on the wrong side of the distinction, routinely observed at AFD, between "coverage about the subject that confers notability for something" and "coverage that just verifies the subject's existence by namechecking the fact within coverage or something or someone else", though. Bearcat (talk) 17:55, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Indeed, nor did I argue to keeping although it does seem plausible that a prosperous businessman might be notable. I do apoligize for casting aspersions Canadian genealogists; clearly they're all over this Trudeau grandparent .E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:09, 22 February 2017 (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.