Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/George Sadler

: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. J04n(talk page) 23:52, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

=[[George Sadler]]=

:{{la|George Sadler}} – (View AfDView log{{int:dot-separator}} [http://toolserver.org/~snottywong/cgi-bin/votecounter.cgi?page=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/George_Sadler Stats])

:({{Find sources|George Sadler}})

No particular claim of notability made. There were lots of convicts transported to Australia, and I'm not sure what makes Sadler special. Bazonka (talk) 18:28, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:37, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:37, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:38, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Keep; Sadler is the subject of coverage by independent reliable sources, and is thus notable. Hesperian 12:05, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

::But is this coverage significant? I don't think it is. Sadler was just one of thousands of convicts transported to Australia, and presumably there is a reliable record of every one of these somewhere. Similarly there are records of births, christenings, marriages and deaths of millions of ordinary people. These records are all independent and reliable, but do not imply any particular notability. Should there be a Wikipedia article for each of these people? I agree that transported convicts are more notable than most people, but as convicts go, Sadler still doesn't seem to be particularly special. Bazonka (talk) 12:43, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

:::Every convict will have an entry in a biographical dictionary somewhere. Only a very few have been researched and written about (at length, in prose) by a historian. Hesperian 00:45, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Delete -- This is a well research biography of an utterly NN individual. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:56, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

:Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

:Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L Faraone 01:13, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Delete There's not much to say, except that I believe it could pass to be deleted as A7. Fails WP:CRIMINAL. Just because a researcher writing a book about criminal transportation writes a few pages on a transportee doesn't make the subject notable. Ohc ^¡digame!_{¿que pasa?} 09:40, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
Delete (as I said above) -- a NN criminal, whose biography has (apparently) been researched, perhaps as an example in an academic book. That does nnot make him notable

: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.