Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Walter Brewer

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. Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 06:54, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Walter Brewer

[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)

Reads like a family history project, no indication of passing WP:GNG? Theroadislong (talk) 17:05, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Theroadislong (talk) 17:05, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:GNG As background, Sandy Hook Pilots were some of the most important pilots in American naval history. Multiple reliable sources confirm Brewer played a key role in the early days of the Sandy Hook Pilots Association and the formation of the Sandy Hook Pilot Boat company. The following secondary sources support his notability.
Russell, Charles Edward (1929). From Sandy Hook to 62°. New York: Century Co. p. 114. OCLC 3804485.
Allen, Edward L. (1922). Pilot Lore From sail to Steam. New York: The United New York and New Jersey Sandy Hook Pilots Benevolent Associations. p. 38.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Greghenderson2006 (talk • contribs) 17:27, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep since GNG and coverage exist. Agree with GregHenderson. The sources support the notability. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 17:32, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I see you also wrote both articles Sandy Hook Pilots and Sandy Hook Pilots Association he is not mentioned in either of them? Theroadislong (talk) 17:33, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Brewer is not mentioned in the source [1]? Theroadislong (talk) 17:39, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:40, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:40, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:40, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Based on an in-depth analysis of the sources. I am not understanding what this person is supposedly notable for. He was born, he was part-owner of three boats, a boat pilot, he started an organization with four others pilots, none of which inherently confers notability. He then got married, had children who had children, then died. The vast lion’s share of the article is not about him at all, but about the boats that he partially owned,. At first glance this looks like a well-sourced article, but it is pieced together with bits of trivia about him, and many sources that do not mention him at all. A source analysis table is offered below. If it is collapsed, click on "show" on the right hand side. My comment continues below the table.

This seems like a clear WP:GNG fail to me. If you actually read the sources in the source assessment chart they are all trivial mentions, don't mention him at all and are about other people or boats he partially owned, or the controversy surrounding an organization in which he was a secretary. Also seems like WP:SYNTH. Netherzone (talk) 18:38, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per nomination and the source analysis from Netherzone, does not pass WP:GNG. Note, there was some previous discussion of a group of articles like this, see Template talk:List of Sea Captains and Pilots where this article is one of a small number remaining that does not have a reason for notability listed, nor has been deleted. Melcous (talk) 23:00, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I am a hearty inclusionist, but I do not see a valid case for notability here.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 13:15, 7 February 2024 (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.