Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jan Snedeker: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 15:42, 30 March 2024

Jan Snedeker

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:BIO notability tests. This man seems to be of interest to his descendants (because he is the earliest known person with the family name), but he has not received significant coverage in published sources and there is not indication of his being important outside the family or a very local context (the article's best assertion for his notability is that he was one of the several founders of a colonial village). The three books cited in the article are a book (probably self-published) of family history and genealogy and two books of the history of the area where he lived. Before starting this AfD, I found online copies of the two history books, identified places where his name was mentioned, and added citations to the article. I found only peripheral mentions of him. He is also covered on the genealogical site WikiTree at https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Snedeker-9 in an article that has far more information and reference citations than the Wikipedia article, but nothing I see there indicates significant published coverage or demonstrates his importance to people who are not his descendants. Orlady (talk) 16:27, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Netherlands, and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:29, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Reading earlier through Google Books, I saw a lot of mentions under four different names. There was one or more persons named after him but this was easy enough to separate. I agree with Orlady that the length of coverage is not a strength. The cumulative coverage, continued interest, and the fact there are absolutely no BLP concerns for this 17th-century historical figure do work in the article's favor. Also, while the descendants and other regional history buffs seem to pay attention to this figure (as already mentioned by Orlady), they do not try to make him into something he wasn't as we sometimes see. It's a healthy interest. I am leaning keep and would appreciate it if user:Ruud Buitelaar could also take a look, as both Dutch and further history. gidonb (talk) 05:33, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Reply. For the record, much of what you see in the current version of the article is content that I added to give the stub article a fighting chance. In the article version I found, the article claimed he was one of 3 founders of Midwout (a "fact" that was not supported by the histories cited; it appears to me that he was merely one of the three men whose names somebody remembered), and the main thrust of the article was on the meaning of the name Midwout. That's content that arguably could be moved into the article about Midwout. Orlady (talk) 15:42, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Revision as of 11:03, 30 March 2024 edit Gidonb (talk \| contribs) Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users 93,149 edits →‎Jan Snedeker: edit ← Previous edit		Revision as of 15:42, 30 March 2024 edit undo Orlady (talk \| contribs) Edit filter managers, Autopatrolled, Administrators 94,557 edits →‎Jan Snedeker: Reply Tag: Reply Next edit →
Line 9:		Line 9:

	*'''Comment'''. Reading earlier through Google Books, I saw a lot of mentions under four different names. There was one or more persons named after him but this was easy enough to separate. I agree with Orlady that the length of coverage is not a strength. The cumulative coverage, continued interest, and the fact there are absolutely no BLP concerns for this 17th-century historical figure do work in the article's favor. Also, while the descendants and other regional history buffs seem to pay attention to this figure (as already mentioned by Orlady), they do not try to make him into something he wasn't as we sometimes see. It's a healthy interest. I am leaning keep and would appreciate it if [[user:Ruud Buitelaar]] could also take a look, as both Dutch and further history. [[User:Gidonb\|gidonb]] ([[User talk:Gidonb\|talk]]) 05:33, 30 March 2024 (UTC)		*'''Comment'''. Reading earlier through Google Books, I saw a lot of mentions under four different names. There was one or more persons named after him but this was easy enough to separate. I agree with Orlady that the length of coverage is not a strength. The cumulative coverage, continued interest, and the fact there are absolutely no BLP concerns for this 17th-century historical figure do work in the article's favor. Also, while the descendants and other regional history buffs seem to pay attention to this figure (as already mentioned by Orlady), they do not try to make him into something he wasn't as we sometimes see. It's a healthy interest. I am leaning keep and would appreciate it if [[user:Ruud Buitelaar]] could also take a look, as both Dutch and further history. [[User:Gidonb\|gidonb]] ([[User talk:Gidonb\|talk]]) 05:33, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
			*:'''Reply.''' For the record, much of what you see in the current version of the article is content that I added to give the stub article a fighting chance. In the [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jan_Snedeker&oldid=1008242713 article version I found], the article claimed he was one of 3 founders of Midwout (a "fact" that was not supported by the histories cited; it appears to me that he was merely one of the three men whose names somebody remembered), and the main thrust of the article was on the meaning of the name Midwout. That's content that arguably could be moved into [[Flatbush\|the article about Midwout]]. [[User:Orlady\|Orlady]] ([[User talk:Orlady\|talk]]) 15:42, 30 March 2024 (UTC)