Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Families in King James II's Irish Army

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. Daniel (talk) 00:54, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Families in King James II's Irish Army

[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)

WP:SALAT as it's way too specific and generally little value as it is, relies only on one source. Just not sure if it merits being kept up in its current form. pinktoebeans ^(talk) 19:17, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. pinktoebeans ^(talk) 19:17, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. pinktoebeans ^(talk) 19:17, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. pinktoebeans ^(talk) 19:17, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No. No. Just delete this. Either this is
WP:OR or it's a copy of a primary source, but there is just no way this is encyclopedic. Even as source material I have to doubt its value. Mangoe (talk) 21:11, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete
Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. I can see no plausible justification for a list such as this, and am certainly not seeing GNG as met. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 23:23, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete: totally
WP:INDISCRIMINATE ww2censor (talk) 23:40, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete fails
WP:SALAT, indiscriminate and unencyclopaedic. Mztourist (talk) 03:22, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete as indiscriminate information. This is a copy of the index to a book, without the page numbers. It's not clear to me that all the names in this list represent members of King James's army; some of the persons in the index could have been mentioned in the book because they were on the opposite side of the war. Also, it appears that one and a half pages of the index were mis-scanned on Archive.org, so that almost all the names between "Morrow" and "Taylor" are missing. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:54, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As per above fails
WP:SALAT. Setreis (talk) 16:55, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete This is the most indiscriminate list I have seen. What next List of all American soldiers who served in World War II. That would only be a little more indiscriminate.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:28, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Wait, this total piece of junk survived 5 years? I do not believe that. Even if the article on
  Barahir surived 15 years, and David Garst has had an article for over 16 years sourced only to the website of his own company. I thought the no indiscriminate collections of knowledge rule worked faster. We really need to going to making all new articles go through the articles for creation process.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:30, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Delete Fails
WP:SALAT. Intothat darkness 21:42, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete Wikipedia is not Yellow Pages.--Darwinek (talk) 23:31, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete totally unencyclopedic. Zawed (talk) 10:57, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- This is a list of surnames. No links to anything. As I read the source, someone in the 1850s found a muster role for the army and published it in 1855. That may (or may not - I do not know) be a significant historical source and an index to it might be useful, but this is not even an index. Wholly encyclopedic. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:02, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete What in the world even.....
talk) 17:46, 31 January 2021 (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.