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. Sr13 is almost Singularity 05:13, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

James Frederick Geer[edit]

James Frederick Geer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

Can't see any assertions to notability. The lead says "he is noted in numerous county and church records" but this is not sourced and even if it were referenced by the records, it seems too trivial to be considered a reliable source. The rest of the article is full of unsourced info about his ancestry, which for a non-notable bio doesn't really mean much. - Zeibura ^(Talk) 16:37, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, non-notable bio. Realkyhick 17:27, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, not notable and not sourced. Mmccalpin 19:46, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete the long article isn't actually about him, except for the lede paragraph--the rest is a genealogy of the family, none of whom seem the least notable.DGG (talk) 22:14, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete yet another attempt to use Wikipedia as annexe of someone's family history scrapbook. Check out William Dudley Geer too. Gordonofcartoon 00:19, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. Vast red links. Bearian 23:48, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete despite the amount of work put into it. It just doesn't meet the notability requirement. Deb 11:56, 2 August 2007 (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.