Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Woodlock family


 * 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. JForget 02:52, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Woodlock family

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Extremely long article with one reference that is offline (a book). — Cargoking   talk  15:13, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete I can't determine that the one referenced book has actually been published. Delete as original research.-- Pontificalibus (talk) 15:17, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment. The fact that a reference is not available for free online does not in itself mean that the reference is invalid. However, I couldn't find the book when I searched the Library of Congress, the British Library, Worldcat or the National Library of Ireland. This is a bad sign, and suggests that the book was self-published or published by a subsidy publisher. However, here is a reference to the book on a discussion board at ancestry.com: http://boards.ancestry.com/surnames.woodlock/66/mb.ashx - Eastmain (talk • contribs)  22:01, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. - Eastmain (talk • contribs)  22:05, 6 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete as a copyright violation. The ancestry.com discussion mentioned above requests clarification of some missing text from the book used as source and every single part of the reply confirmed text that is identical to text in the article per this reply to the initial post on ancestry.com. So it appears to be a word for word copy of The Woodlock Families of Ireland. Here is another extract from the source book on a rootsweb.com discussion which again is identical to this section Woodlock family of the article and a third extract is at this Museumstuff.com page again identical to this section of the article Woodlock family, reaffirming my copyright violation suspicion. ww2censor (talk) 04:48, 7 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete because it is just a collection of data about people who happen to be related to each other. The family itself, unlike a few others in history, does not seem to be notable. Steve Dufour (talk) 21:23, 7 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep but it needs tidying. I see lots of links on google just for the bould Torsten utlag. It reminds me of Durrus and District History Modern, which has had similar issues for years but is not slated for deletion.Red Hurley (talk) 14:37, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
 * What links? I can't see anything significant. I also can't find anything to suggest the family itself is notable (as this are the subject of the article, they should be notable as an entity). Regardless of that, how do you propose addressing the copyright concerns raised above other than by deleting all the content? -- Pontificalibus (talk) 14:44, 9 February 2010 (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.