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--Ymblanter (talk) 09:36, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

William Lloyd 1748-1834 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:SOLDIER. Looks like a genealogy page of an admirable ancestor and would be a wonderful entry at an appropriate venue, like ancestry.com. But sadly perhaps, WP:NOTGENEALOGY. Gaff (talk) 03:50, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• comment this was CSD-A7 speedy delete earlier today. --Gaff (talk) 03:50, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - I have three books that give biographies of people who fought in the American Revolution. Two of them have biographies on Lloyd (so we know this isn't a hoax) but say little more than "He was apart of Daniel Morgan's Rifle Regiment -- went to Kentucky -- had a pension". Clearly fails WP:SOLDIER. Fighting in the revolution doesn't grant automatic notability. A few people may be interested in him (his descendants only, probably) but few beyond that. He doesn't seem to pass WP:GNG either (I also did a GBooks search -- revealed little more than the sources I physically had do.). Should really be speedy deleted. Thanks, --ceradon (talk • contribs) 04:46, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:54, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:54, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:54, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Just a soldier with no outstanding feats to his credit. Clarityfiend (talk) 03:27, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nomination, which outlines the case nicely: fails GNG, the SNG for Soldiers, and runs afoul of our prohibition against more or less random Genealogical entries. Carrite (talk) 19:16, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Falls well short of GNG. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 00:50, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Not GNG standard. Intothatdarkness 23:04, 6 February 2015 (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.