Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zachariah Eastin


 * 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. Lankiveil (speak to me) 09:41, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Zachariah Eastin

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Non-notable genealogical entry, sourced to self-published family narratives. See WP:NOTGENEALOGY. Cindy ( talk ) 15:45, 29 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep Brigadier-General is a general rank and is not insignificant. Barney the barney barney (talk) 21:09, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment. I guess I should have been more thorough here. The notability guidelines for military personnel can be found at WP:MILMOS/N. The subject did not serve as a general in the Regular Army (directly following the Continental Army), but rather served as major and/or colonel from 1813-1815. (Depending on which narrative is supported, he either enlisted as a major or colonel. The article also states that he "must have" also held a lower rank of captain, but I'm unable to find a source.) The article at brigadier general does not actually reflect the equivalent of the modern rank by the same name in the US during this time period. The subject also never commanded a division or larger (or their equivalent) during combat. At the same time, a search for reliable sources to establish notability in accordance with the notability guidelines at WP:MILMOS/N came up empty. Note that these guidelines additionally state that a "person who is only mentioned in genealogical records or family histories, or is traceable only through primary documents, is not notable". Best regards, Cindy  ( talk ) 00:38, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
 * The guideline is WP:SOLDIER.  While that has its problems, it does note that general rank officers should be included. Barney the barney barney (talk) 10:54, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment. Yes, WP:SOLDIER is the shortcut to the same content. However, it doesn't state that general rank officers should be included {or that the rank indicates notability). It says that if there is a rank of general, then there will almost always have sufficient coverage. It also goes on to say that a "person who is only mentioned in genealogical records or family histories, or is traceable only through primary documents, is not notable". In this case, threshold for meeting the GNG has not been met, due to the lack of significant reliable and independent sources. All the sources offered are mere genealogical, family narratives. Cindy  ( talk ) 19:25, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:37, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:37, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:37, 30 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete agree with nom. While WP:MILMOS/N is an essay not guideline it does provide a starting point to consider. Further the sources are very sparse on GNG grounds. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 01:02, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Abstaining for now. Due to SOLIDER #3 this will come down to determining if the sourcing is reliable and significant coverage. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 15:26, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

I found the attached source for consideration in keeping this article: http://archive.org/stream/historyofhenders00star#page/754/mode/2up — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jeastin (talk • contribs) 00:20, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Added link to article. "History of Henderson County" is so long and detailed it basically covers everyone who ever lived in Henderson County (an exaggeration but not much). Not a great sign of notability to be in the book, but the book does verify aspects of his career. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 01:24, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

If you go to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Garrard go to the section called "religious leadership" and "political career" you will see a great deal of info on his father Augustine Eastin. In the article James_Garrard - "Governor of Kentucky," it states, "Before the final convention in 1792, a committee composed of Garrard, Ambrose Dudley, and Augustine Eastin reported to the Elkhorn Baptist Association in favor of forbidding slavery in the constitution then being drafted for the new state.[5] Slavery was a major issue in the 1792 convention that finalized the document." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jeastin (talk • contribs) 03:35, 2 October 2013 (UTC) 
 * Keep. Doesn't matter what command he held or didn't hold. Brigadier-general is sufficient for inclusion per WP:SOLDIER, a widely-accepted standard for military biographical articles. -- Necrothesp (talk) 23:44, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 01:47, 6 October 2013 (UTC)




 * Keep Seems to be a number of sources available. The article needs partially re-written, the source are knackered, and in the wrong font, and it needs wikified. Apart from that. It's clearly notable material. scope_creep talk 20:42, 06 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep. Passes WP:SOLDIER as a flag rank officer. - The Bushranger One ping only 09:52, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
 * CommentEastin wasn't Regular Army according to Heitman's Register. What's the bar for volunteer/state militia rank? Intothatdarkness 19:07, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Doesn't make any difference. A general is a general. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:18, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Not really...but I know how wiki reality works. Carry on. Intothatdarkness 15:27, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, really! -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:43, 9 October 2013 (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.