Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/James Todd

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 of the debate was NO CONSENSUS. -Splash^talk 02:15, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] James Todd

Not really a nn-bio but close, only claim to notabily is to become one of the first settlers of a very small town. Delete --Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 01:07, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

• Delete non-notable Tom Harrison ^Talk 01:23, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

• Comment. The consensus from past AfD votes seems to allow for articles on important historical figures from small towns. JoaoRicardo^talk 01:45, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
• Weak delete not only is he non-notable, but there is no source - then again, Joao brought up a good point, so I'll make it a weak delete --M@thwiz2020 02:33, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
• Comment. I would look at voting to keep this if there was any verifiable information cited or available. However, a quick Google came up with nothing (not surprising for someone from the nineteenth century, I suppose). Capitalistroadster 03:11, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - without sources articles like this will make WP a repository of family folklore--Porturology 03:36, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Many have said this would be a keep if it were sourced, so I say keep it and tag it as needing sources. -- Samuel Wantman 07:01, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Even if verifiable, which it doesn't appear to be, I'd say NN. Marskell 08:38, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, but only on the condition that it can be sourced. Once we have a source, send it to cleanup.Peyna 15:15, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, unless verifiable. --Terence Ong (恭喜发财) 16:09, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, provided it can be sourcedHelzagood 21:45, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
• Weak keep and encourage citing of sources SP-KP 00:34, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as unsourced. I'll switch to keep if it's sourced properly. If the author finds sources after deletion they should be able to get this undeleted. --Rob 05:57, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Now that there are some sources, it will be necessary to review them more carefully before voting. --Rob 16:38, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as unsourced/unverifiable. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 05:59, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. He appears to exist [1], along with laying claim to one of the first water records [2], and the small part Google will let me see seems to indicate he negotiated with Indians for land [3], backed up to a point by this geneaology site [4] which notes him as the first known settler. Maybe mentioned in a textbook, too? [5]. Regardless, it needs to be sourced better and I'm not sure how to add these in having zero knowledge of the man, but this is absolutely worth keeping. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEME?) 15:00, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep obscure yet notable stuff is still notable. Adrian Lamo · (talk) · (mail) · 23:56, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Adrian Lamo. Ardenn 07:53, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
• Merge into Barnhartvale, British Columbia. --Dogbreathcanada 07:22, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete the provided sources are clearly insufficient, as they basically only prove that a man by that name existed in that region. I have seen that a post has been left on the original author's talk page, without any effect. I vote for delete given the impossibility of better sourcing the article and the fact that we really at the border of being non-notable. - Liberatore(T) 21:34, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

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.