Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Smith, the Miller


 * 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. If we don't have reliable sourcing for the town being named after ghim then that make the claim OR and not suitable for a merge so the policy based argument is the deletion one. Spartaz Humbug! 07:23, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

John Smith, the Miller

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Mis-titled article about a person not subject to significant personal coverage in multiple reliable sources ╟─ Treasury Tag ►  condominium  ─╢ 08:34, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Rhode Island-related deletion discussions.  — • Gene93k (talk) 00:34, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions.  — • Gene93k (talk) 00:34, 4 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep. Having a town named after you and being mentioned in early histories seems notable enough to me. -- Bduke   (Discussion)  08:26, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:08, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

 
 * Ehhh...on consideration, merge to Smithfield, Rhode Island. Or rather, now that I've removed the unreliable source, there isn't really anything to merge, so just expand the "History" section of that article with the sources on Smith in Google Books (, for example). Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 05:23, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
 * The problem with that is that the article says the town was named after Smithfield in London, not after a John Smith. Which is correct? -- Bduke   (Discussion)  10:31, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
 * While it seems to me that that is the more likely explanation, it's unsourced. The claim that the locality is named after John Smith doesn't appear in this extensive study, however, so my advice would be to put in the Smithfield article that the town's website says it is named after Smith. (Nor does the book say it's named after England's Smithfield, unless I didn't look hard enough.) Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 13:43, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, T. Canens (talk) 15:32, 19 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete short of a time machine, I can't imagine how we could ever have enough material for a half-decent stub. Stuartyeates (talk) 03:23, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Merge the town website's claim to Smithfield, Rhode Island. If he's only known for allegedly founding that town, and that's we all we know about him, then the town's article is where we should cover it.  Sandstein '  05:40, 27 July 2011 (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.