Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/William Lundy


 * 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. The Bushranger One ping only 10:37, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

William Lundy

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

I'd say this is a borderline G10, but the subject is deceased, so an AfD is possibly the best place for this. Basically, the article is one big mess, full of poorly sourced or totally unsourced claims, and at most, the guy is notable for one thing. A Google search turns up one local source, and almost everything else is blatantly unreliable, or clearly about someone else. In short; he doesn't pass WP:SOLDIER, doesn't appear to meet WP:GNG, and the article itself needs WP:TNT applying. Luke no 94 (tell Luke off here) 11:55, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete - doesn't pass GNG or SOLDIER; no coverage more than a passing mention. Incidentally, Life published photos of him as one of the "last veterans" in 1949, in 1953 and again in 1956, but in the 60 years since then they've changed their mind; now they classify him as a hoaxer. Either way, it's not enough to make him notable by our standards. —  Scott  •  talk  13:32, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Weak keep. He seems to be a notable enough hoaxer. He gets a couple of pages in Civil War Tales of the Tennessee Valley (pp. 207-8) as a "veteran". There's his application for a pension as a vet., the Life mentions,, even a post-death controversy over a Confederate flag over his memorial and sundry others. Clarityfiend (talk) 18:44, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
 * First source is routine coverage, as they're just interviewing for people in the area - this also makes it a local source. His pension details are utterly irrelevant, and have no notability. The Life picture does not give anything close to in-depth coverage. The source that you use for talking about "controversy over the flag" is both highly unreliable (Fox News), appears to be a local branch of the unreliable source, and is most definitely not in-depth coverage either. The "Florida Memory" thing is just a routine databasing of an old photo, and nothing more. Nothing you produce here comes close to showing notability. Luke no 94  (tell Luke off here) 18:51, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 15:08, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 15:08, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Alabama-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 15:08, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 15:08, 5 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep.  A man is noted enough through the 1950s to show up repeatedly in the news of the day (many AP stories are easily found at google.com/newspapers, for example, and here's Sports Illustrated in 1954 ), gets a gold medal from Congress , is commemorated with a Confederate Memorial Park that becomes a source of prolonged controversy  ; then turns out to be a fake?  Passes GNG, and deletion brings no benefit to the encyclopedia. --Arxiloxos (talk) 15:50, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep as subject easily crosses notability threshold and AfD is not cleanup. That subject's claims may now be in question does not obviate the press coverage, Congressional attention, and other references. If he's a notable fake, notability is not temporary even if his claims are now in doubt. - Dravecky (talk) 21:00, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:14, 6 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep -- The last survivor of a war, even if disputed, is notable. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:57, 10 March 2014 (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.