Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:AMK152/ChildrenCivilWar

 __NOINDEX__
 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the discussion was Keep. — xaosflux  Talk 16:02, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

User:AMK152/ChildrenCivilWar


Per WP:WEBHOST, I'm not sure this could be a notable list. It seems like a list of sons and daughters of all veterans from the American Civil War which seems too broad and indiscriminate a grouping (it also would be inherited notability based on their parents). I'm not even certain a listing of all veterans from the Civil War would be a good list, let alone a list of their children (dead or alive). Ricky81682 (talk) 22:40, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep and close - no, this is not used as a web host. It is a draft for a future article. It's a list of living sons and daughters. It is still a draft and not ready to be an actual article as I need to collect sources so that it meets Wikipedia's criteria. List of last survivors of historical events and related articles are similar in content type. Why are you nominating subpages for deletion without getting a clear idea to it's purpose? My talk page is only a click a way! —  AMK152  (t • c) 00:39, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I get the purpose. It's a userspace draft for an active editor; however there's still BLP issues here and I'm not certain how a list of (I presume) the current list living descendants of civil war veterans could be an article. I see that List of veterans of World War I who died in 1999 means that you could in theory make a series of lists based on them as they died (and I'd still say the veterans are notable, the children are inherited notability) but I don't know why a list of the ones who are living is appropriate. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 02:00, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Hence, it is not yet an article as it is not yet ready. That is why it is in userspace. —  AMK152  (t • c) 03:16, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

I question this still but I'll withdraw it as well. - Ricky81682 (talk) 08:15, 22 December 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 page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.