Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jarvis Andrew Lattin

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was to delete the article. --Canderson7 16:10, September 5, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Jarvis Andrew Lattin

Article does not explain what makes this person notable. But it sure uses a lot of words to do it. Zoe 07:32, August 27, 2005 (UTC)

• The content is in my namespace to protect data in case it is deleted after a vote. That is not a valid reason for deletion in itself. By that logic anyone who trys to protect information at their namespace will have their entries deleted. A careful reading of the external links used will show that I am the author there also, my name is clearly listed. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 22:01, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

• Delete probably a copyvio of the link it mentions anyway Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 08:12, 27 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep due to his attachment to town history and for having places named after him, but delete all the genealogical junk, and trim it down to a modest size. Paul Klenk 09:52, 27 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, for Heaven's sake. The content is here at [the author's user page]. This is just an offshoot of a genealogy project; the subject is not known. Dottore So 14:53, 27 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep factual and verifiable. Re write it though... Trollderella 22:04, 27 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, non-notable. Nandesuka 22:37, 27 August 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy delete, sounds like an A7 candidate to me. "Gold prospector", "deputy sheriff" of some hamlet, and a town was named not after him but after his family. The rest is genealogy and trivia. WP:NOT comes to mind. Radiant_>|< 19:14, August 28, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep due to relationship to Lattington and Long Island. I agree with Paul Klenk; it needs to be cut down and all the extraneous junk material removed. Let him do his genealogy elsewhere. Stepp-Wulf 02:21, 29 August 2005 (UTC).
• Delete. Relationship is claimed to Lattington and Long Island for the family, not this individual. Radiant! pointed this out, but I guess people don't read. Well written article, but not encyclopedic. Quale 15:26, 31 August 2005 (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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.