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. -- Cirt (talk) 01:03, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pliny Wood (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)

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

No indication of notability. Does not meet criteria of WP:MILPEOPLE. NtheP (talk) 09:36, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep This is a classic example of why WP Notability Doctrine is stuffed. This article appears to have VERACITY, VERIFIABILITY, and the be written from a NEUTRAL POINT OF VIEW. The subject is perhaps arcane, of interest to a handful of Civil War buffs. But what is the harm of keeping this biography in the Wikipedia database? It is not selling anything, promoting anything, or in anyway hampering anyone's Wikipedia user experience. Why trash a perfectly good historical bio on the grounds of "no indication of notability"? Carrite (talk) 15:51, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:58, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:58, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - NtheP sums up my argument as well: No reliable sources indicate even the smallest amount of notability in any area, either under GNG or the more specific MILPEOPLE. Without any rudeness, Wood was just a casualty of the American Civil War and nothing more notable than that I'm afraid. Skinny87 (talk) 20:05, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nomination. Buckshot06 (talk) 21:16, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: no notability established, completely undistinguished military career. bahamut0013^words_deeds 21:25, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Very junior officer. Not especially notable. Appears to be of more genealogical interest than anything else. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:36, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. All references are from databases. Google returns only more of the same. The article gives no assertion of being anything more than a genealogical entry. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 01:35, 8 July 2010 (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.