Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/James S. Putnam


 * 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 delete. - Mailer Diablo 00:51, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

James S. Putnam
Tagged as speedy, taken to WP:DRV. Restored out-of-process by Tony Sidaway who then failed to notify User:NSLE and take to AfD per Undeletion_policy. Completing the process for him. This article cannot be verified:. Always happy to see new information. brenneman (t) (c) 22:25, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete unless the claims of notability (or any of it LOL) can be verified. AFD is the place to place for examining such claims, not DRV. Kappa 22:50, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Which is why at the least Tony should have brought it here. - brenneman (t) (c)  23:15, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, until any of this is verified. I'm tired of stuff like this. WP:POINT, and all that. Pilatus 22:54, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete the "chariot racing champion" part is the only bit that's really notable, and after poking around of Google I haven't been able to verify that (or the rest, for that matter). The article almost seems to go out of its way to avoid being able to be checked for accuracy (doesn't mention the year of his chariot race or where it was held, doesn't mention the name of his stable, his pipe-fitting business, etc.)  Delete as unverifiable. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  23:01, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I removed the nn-bio tag before it was restored and delted. it should not ahve been restored, and if the deleting admin had looked at the history i suspect it would not have been deelted. This did not qualify for A7. Nice catch, Tony. That said, unless sources for the key claims, particuarlly the chariot racing championship, can be provided, this fails WP:V, and so the proepr result is Delete. DES (talk) 00:22, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Umm, you're giving the wrong person credit: WP:DRV says it was Mgm's catch. - brenneman (t) (c)  00:38, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete Unverified, ergo hoax. Mr. Sidaway, if unchecked, might have snuck junk into WP again. Sanction restorer for failing to follow due process by listing here, in this case sorely needed, as anyone with common sense can see. Xoloz 00:54, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, please stop screwing around WP:V. Tito xd (?!? - help us) 01:36, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. There are many James S. Putnams in Google and this one needs a lot more references to show he's notable.—Stombs 05:50, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, despite Tony Sidaway's apparent campaign against verifiability. Friday (talk) 16:20, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment: I would like to remind everyone there's a difference between unverifiable and unverified. The second refers to articles which have yet to be verified, the first refers to articles that cannot be verified if tried. Those words do not mean the same thing. - Mgm|(talk) 23:07, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Whether it is unverifiable or not "in general" is irrelevant - it is, today, unverified based on any accessible sources. Should verifiable sources be produced at a later date that support his claim to notability, it is a simple enough thing to undelete or create a new article on this man. We should not be allowing unverified content to be introduced into Wikipedia, whether positive or negative about its subject, so as this article fails to cite its sources, I vote delete. FCYTravis 00:12, 25 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Comment According to this site, Pipefitters Local 205 is in Oklahoma, not Idaho. While this does not necessarily make the entire article false or a hoax, it's certainly food for thought that the one and only checkable fact in the article seems to be incorrect. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  12:50, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Didn't list on AfD because it's not an obvious deletion candidate. No vote on this.  Give it time for verification. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 17:55, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, verifiability questionable at best and what meagre evidence exists suggests a possible hoax. And it's to avoid possible hoaxes that we have WP:V, after all! Lord Bob 09:10, 28 December 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 a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.