Login
Login

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/James Steuart (physician)

: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. \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 03:05, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

=[[James Steuart (physician)]]=

:{{la|James Steuart (physician)}} – (View AfD)(View log)

:({{findsources|James Steuart (physician)}})

The article is entirely sourced to a self-published book. This is one of several articles all sourced to that one book, and they probably all bear looking at. This one in particular, though, doesn't seem to assert much notability. He was a military doctor who retired to his farm. Probably of great familial interest, but not encyclopedic. Leoniceno (talk) 02:04, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. No clear claim to notability. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:08, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

It's sourced to a self-published book but one which includes a great deal of primary material. James Steuart is of note in that, as a physician and a member of a planter family in Maryland before and during the Revolutionary war, his loyalties were divided bewteen The Crown and to the fledgling United States. The American Revolution may in part be seen as a kind of Civil War, in many ways a fratricidal one in which families were divided. Steuart's family shows this very well; he himself was a Tory and yet joined the flying camp militia, and was on social terms with George Washington. So he helps to illustrate the very grey nature of loyalties during the Revolutionary War and is therefore part of an important historical context - Alex Williams —Preceding unsigned comment added by Asteuartw (talk • contribs) 07:34, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

  • Delete - per nom and also no indication of notability in the article itself. Shadowjams (talk) 08:39, 8 September 2009 (UTC) Neutral - good work since nomination Shadowjams (talk) 22:28, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Weak delete A Google book search shows that James Steuart was a prominent physician in Maryland. He promoted vaccination. In 1822 he reestablished a society for promoting vaccination [http://books.google.com/books?id=6tF4AAAAMAAJ&pg=PA734&dq=%22james+steuart%22+physician&lr=&as_brr=0&ei=XKWmSqfgOpTkMPWl4IoK#v=onepage&q=%22james%20steuart%22%20physician&f=false History of Baltimore City and County (1881) page 734]. He was on a 5 man commission to set up a college of physicians in 1803 (p 735). Smallpox deaths in the area declined from 26 in Feb (when he established the vaccination operation) to 3 in April (perhaps "original research " to give him credit.) [http://books.google.com/books?id=xNcRAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA26&dq=%22james+steuart%22+physician&lr=&as_brr=0&ei=MqmmStyyEJOCNt_J3JUK#v=onepage&q=&f=false Medical Annals of Baltimore, (1884) p26]. He was apparently quoted by Washington Irving regarding customs in Annapolis in his youth [http://books.google.com/books?id=l_oMAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA227&dq=%22james+steuart%22+physician&lr=&as_brr=0&ei=-aemSpnKIJjGM8617aAK#v=onepage&q=%22james%20steuart%22%20physician&f=false "Side-lights on Maryland history" (1913) (p227)]. He "rendered valuable service" in the War of 1812 (p228). He is said to have been an associate of Washington, and was an Edinburgh educated doctor, not that common in pre-revolutionary America. This one is borderline. There may be print sources not available on line, and if someone dug them out and referenced it perhaps an article could be recreated. Not quite seeing that WP:BIO is satisfied at this point. Edison (talk) 19:07, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment - I'm having second thoughts based on the content turned up above. Since there is an editor committed to working on the page, perhaps we should let it stand for now. Leoniceno (talk) 21:31, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete. Looks like part of a series of genealogical articles. Obviously a local worthy, but not notable enough for a WP article. -- Necrothesp (talk) 17:27, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete Nice attempt at cleanup, but there is still no assertion of historical significance. Eusebeus (talk) 20:14, 13 September 2009 (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.