Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David William Thomas


 * 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   keep. J04n(talk page) 15:01, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

David William Thomas

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Claim to fame is being the mayor of the town of Minden, Louisiana (population 14k). That's about it. As none of the references are accessible online, no evidence of significant third-party coverage. OhNo itsJamie Talk 23:25, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. lavender|(formerlyHMSSolent)|lambast 00:56, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. lavender|(formerlyHMSSolent)|lambast 00:56, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:33, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:34, 7 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep. Falls under Local politicians with significant local coverage; could also qualify as an academic and journalist. Billy Hathorn (talk) 02:50, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep Standard GNG for a local politician. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 03:19, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I do not see how anyone could reasonably call to delete this. It is reasonably complete; it is reasonably well written and cited.  The subject has been deceased since 1961 - you might not like it, but just leave it alone, it's not doing any harm. Le petit fromage (talk) 11:50, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep as nominator largely bases the argument to delete upon the reasoning: "As none of the references are accessible online, no evidence of significant third-party coverage." This reasoning is in direct contradiction of WP:SOURCEACCESS: "Some reliable sources may not be easily accessible. For example, an online source may require payment, and a print source may be available only in university libraries or other offline places. Do not reject sources just because they are hard or costly to access." 24.151.10.165 (talk) 23:54, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
 * KeepE.M.Gregory (talk) 15:37, 12 March 2015 (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.