Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thomas Van Pelt


 * 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   redirect to Confederated_Tribes_of_Siletz_Indians. There's not enough context in this article to even determine whether or not this person is notable so I'm redirecting this as an editorial decision. Consider this a no consensus close with leave to speedy renominate. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:09, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Thomas Van Pelt

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Only claim to notability seems to be as the father of Sam Van Pelt, whose biog is currently up for AfD at Articles for deletion/Sam Van Pelt. I've done a fairly quick search, but I can't find anything to support the inclusion of this article (there are some genealogical refs, but that's not notable). I haven't gone for CSD, as it's the kind of subject that might possibly be sourceable outwith a Google search. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:17, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment Both Sam and Thomas van Pelt are mentioned in The Rogue River Indian War and its aftermath, 1850-1980, p. 13 (available at G-Books). However, I can't find more substantial coverage, just minor mentions. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 14:27, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

I understand there is little notable references to post these two men on Wiki, but I noticed their names on the Confederated Tribes of Siletz Indians with no description, and since these two men are my grandfathers I used what little information I could to bring any such information to their posthumous pages. With the history American Indians have these two men fought hard to try to keep the tribes of their ancestors alive, and apparently the Confederated Tribes of Siletz Indians hold Thomas and Sam in high regard for their support during that period. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Urok89 (talk • contribs) 19:33, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

But no hard feelings if you feel Thomas and Sam's pages HAVE to be deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Urok89 (talk • contribs) 19:35, 23 June 2010 (UTC)


 * With all respect to your ancestors, Urok89, verifiability is important for Wikipedia. Their importance should be noted by multiple independent and reliable sources. Furthermore, editing articles related to you is rather discouraged here, it is considered as a conflict of interest. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 06:43, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:57, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:27, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
 * 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.