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. Cirt (talk) 04:52, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: ((subst:spa|username)); suspected canvassed users: ((subst:canvassed|username)); accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: ((subst:csm|username)) or ((subst:csp|username)).

Peter Pumyea II[edit]

Non-notable person. Unreferenced article. Tagged as not meeting WP:NOTE since December 2007. Not only does it fail WP:NOTE, it fails WP:NOTDIR: Wikipedia articles are not.....genealogical entries. Drawn Some (talk) 02:15, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I am adding Peter Pommieeje to this discussion as it is a redirect to this article. Drawn Some (talk) 02:30, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as the nominator is correct. This minor patriot is not notable and Wikipedia is not a compendium of genealogical thingies. Crafty (talk) 02:59, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - I've quite disappointed at the continued wikihounding of nom against the creator of this article, this is what brought this to my attention. Having done a quick search it didn't take long to find [1] quite a few hits suggesting there are sources to help fill in this stuby article to defend its inclusion. Historical figures by definition means that sourcing takes longer to find and interpret but even a basic google book search shows they indeed exist. It would be nice to have a better article explaining more the notability of this person but we have to also not push into original research and instead find the sourcing that explains the notability for us. If nom isn't willing to do that legwork then it may be best for them to focus on building articles of their own rather than attempting to remove the work of someone they apparently are at odds with. -- Banjeboi 12:11, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, as your Google book search shows, the only available references are genealogical directory entries. Since these were people from New Jersey, the references would be most likely to be found in NJ and NY libraries and Google was allowed to scan their books. I am surprised, Benjiboi, that you don't seem to understand WP:NOTDIR or else willfully choose to ignore that consensus that Wikipedia articles are not genealogical entries. Please clarify which is the case because I am trying to AGF here about your comments. I am also concerned that you are dealing with deletion discussions on the basis of emotion rather than actually analyzing the articles and topics. Also please do not make comments that aren't true that I didn't do legwork. Please AGF. Your comments are a personal attack and will NOT be tolerated here on Wikipedia. Drawn Some (talk) 13:47, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

These sources demonstrate that indeed this person is notable enough to be listed even though they died over 200 years ago. You incorrectly state "only available references", these are actually the only available references as of the moment on Google Books. My point is that if these sources are readily available it follows that others exist as well. I'm hardly basing my opinion on emotion but thanks for the allegation of such, AGF indeed. I didn't state you didn't do any searching but that you're working to delete an article that seemingly your main interest is the creator of it rather than the content; and that you seem unwilling to do the legwork of finding and adding the needed sourcing so it may be wisest to let those who are do so. Feel free to to find any personal attack, I'm pretty sure I avoided doing any such thing. -- Banjeboi 14:08, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As said in another AfD: I'm sorry, but his chief claim to notability is being a captain and fighting in a war. Well if that isn't notable enough to save Stephen Trujillo, who was also decorated for saving other soldiers and recognized by the President during the next State of the Union speech and much more in the way of sources, then it isn't notable enough to keep Peter Pumyea II. As for the wiki-stalking accusation, I can't see why this applies here and raising it looks like a diversionary smokescreen. The subject gives every appearence of being non-notable and should be nominated, regardless of who the author or nominator are. Even if there was the stalking you claim (and I'm not saying there is by any means), that should not invalidate the legitimacy of this nomination. If I'd seen it, I'd probably have nominated it myself. As for your sources.....they prove the person existed, which I don't think is being questioned. Nothing in them looks notable, which is the actual issue here, not allegations of wiki-stalking. Niteshift36 (talk) 14:47, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. fails WP:BIO. --Cameron Scott (talk) 09:35, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 11:56, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 11:57, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Another relevant essay would be WP:MILMOS#NOTE which says "any person who is only mentioned in genealogical records or family histories, or is traceable only through primary documents, is probably not notable." Niteshift36 (talk) 14:31, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:BIO and Wikipedia is not a directory of everyone mentioned somewhere in the "big directory of all soldiers who fought in a war." Ancestry.com is a more suitable venue for information which might be of genealogical interest. Edison (talk) 15:44, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per other nom'd revolutionary war soldier. Serving is not enough, articles are genealogical in nature, no notability is established, and inclusion in a book which lists soldiers doesn't show notability. Those books are easily compiled by copying public documents, and aren't written for a purpose of being a particular biography of any one subject, but a directory, which isn't enough for notability, otherwise, anyone in the phone book would be eligible. ThuranX (talk) 16:12, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Junior officer with, as far as I can see, nothing particularly notable about him. One of many thousands of similar rank and achievements. -- Necrothesp (talk) 19:13, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- A NN junior officer, unless there is evidence of some notable achievement (and there is none yet. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:37, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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.