Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jonathan Plowman Jr.


 * 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   no consensus. Black Kite 01:02, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Jonathan Plowman Jr.
Jonanthan Plowman fails the Notability_%28people%29 for Politicians Though the article has been corrected many times, it still seems merely a paean to an ancestor. Being a town commissioner in Eighteenth Century Baltimore is not notability. There are a number of sources many of which are misleading. In none of the reliable sources is Jonathan Plowman more than just a name. Only three pages link to it:

John Stevenson (doctor) created by the same person as the Plowman article. The Stevenson article also reads like a paean.

Baltimore where the sentence seems contrived to make a link.

George Washington where in the context of the paragraph Baltimore merchant could be easily substituted for Plowman.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by GcSwRhIc (talk • contribs) 
 * Comment This is a defective AFD, since it points to a disambiguation page for the name "Jonathan" rather than the intended Jonathan Plowman Jr.. Please fix it rather than !voting on deletion of the disambiguation page. Edison (talk) 19:08, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I think I have fixed it to point to the article in question. Gnome de plume (talk) 19:09, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Lots of references to old minor legal documents (land records, etc) and some genealogy. Many refs point to relatives or to historical events in which Plowman was involved only incidentally. Owning land and having descendants does not make one notable. Rklear (talk) 21:34, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
 * 'Keep on the basis of what seems to have been equivalent to member of the city council of a major city at the time. DGG (talk) 23:56, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep He was also one of the leading traders in indentured servants in the colonies. Enough references to support article even if mentions are not extensive. "Jonathan Plowman" baltimore gets 49 gbooks hits.John Z (talk) 00:57, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
 * There is no reliable reference to him as a leading colonial trader in indentured servants, though the article makes that claim. The Park Service reference only states that in the 1750s and 1760s, he and another man were the leading suppliers to Hampton Plantation in Baltimore County. Nothing beyond that. The book hits on Google only reinforce that lack of notability. None are more than a mention as a merchant or as part of a larger list of names. Even Scharf’s Chronicles of Baltimore makes very few references.GcSwRhIc (talk) 01:48, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep as a town commissioner in a major city. Phil Bridger (talk) 12:16, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Baltimore in the 1760's and early 1770's was not a major city. GcSwRhIc (talk) 12:30, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Its Wikipedia article describes it as a large port city at this time. Phil Bridger (talk) 16:34, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
 * The article does not describe it as a major port city at the time. All it says is that it grew rapidly in the Eighteenth Century which is the truth. Most of the growth occured after Plowman's death (1776 not 1795 as the article states). I spent 4 hours at the Maryland room of the Enoch Pratt Library trying find notability. Plowman is a footnote. Almost all the family information in the article is incorrect. He came from England in 1758. He was a town commissioner in 1768. He signed the nonimportation agreement as did almost all the other merchants in town. No mention of him in any public office or in public affairs after 1774. His 1776 will is in the Baltimore County will book. The was apparently a lengthy battle over his estate. In the 100+ years of the Maryland Historical Magazine his name appears about a dozen or so times. They are minor mostly in connection with his business dealings or a land survey.GcSwRhIc (talk) 21:23, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete as non-notable politician and merchant. Someone has pulled together something that might make for an interesting pamphlet at a historical society. What has been assembled, however, argues at great length that this sort of figure is in fact not notable; he comes across as a sort of colonial merchant-class Everyman. Town councilmen are notable? It doesn't appear so-- not unless they commit memorable sins in office. Mangoe (talk) 16:16, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton Tropical  Cyclone  20:58, 3 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep passes WP:N without difficulty, as the subject of independent, reliable coverage. Misunderstanding of notability aside, there's simply no argument for deletion, which "passes WP:N" is a fairly strong argument for keeping. Wily D  21:49, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
 * There's a difference between being mentioned in sources and having sources that talk specifically about you. Plowman doesn't appear to be the subject of coverage so much as he is incidental to it. Rklear (talk) 00:45, 4 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom, the coverage received doesn't quite reach the level of "non-trivial" we're looking for with respect to biographical works.  coccyx bloccyx  (toccyx)  20:11, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
 * 'Keep I wrote the article in question. Yes I am not an expert at writing the entry, but deletion is not warranted.  Jonathan Plowman Jr. is an example of first how much opportunity abound in America as a son of an indentured Servant.  Secondly he played a crucial part of the Baltimore City Council including being part of Revolutionary City Council.  He was crucial in expanding Baltimore and well known in the colonies.  George Washington interceded with the British on his behalf in 1771 to help him recoup a impounded ship which was part of the British oppression that lead to the Revolution.  He even had a warrant for his arrest for having signed a petition objecting to British blocking the citizens of Baltimore from easy access to vote for their own city leaders.  He is also in the National Park Service historical notes as being the leading importer of indentured Servants into America during the 1750's and 1760's.  The man as a whole was part of the backbone that made the city of Baltimore and leader in both colonial and Revolutionary times.  Part of the secret network that spied on British movement as well.  In end, please don't delete.  Consider cleaning it up, but don't delete.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.195.146.118 (talk) 15:07, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
 * First, he is not Jonathan Plowman Jr. but just plain Jonathan Plowman an English merchant who arrived in Baltimore in 1758. Two, he was only a major supplier to one plantation (Hampton) according to the Park Service. His will is in the 1776 Baltimore County will book so he couldn’t have done anything significant during the Revolution  His marriage to Rebecca Arnold in 1761. Their three children baptized at the First Presbyterian Church, none of whom old enough to participate in the revolution. Lastly it was a town commission not a city council. An important distinction which not only is reflected in the size of the population at the time, but in the limited powers of the commission. Commissioners were appointed for life. In fact a “revolutionary council” did in fact occur in 1781 when the town commissioners of the time acceded to an elected board. The first elected government in Baltimore. All of this after Plowman’s death. You want the article cleaned up. I looked at the sources. I could do it. It would probably be 30 -40% of its current size with accurate citations. The resulting article would be factually correct. The problem is being a merchant which primarily is what Plowman was is not notable in itself. I know a warehouse of his blew up in Annapolis, and it made the Boston papers. It was news worthy only because warehouses don’t often blow up not because the owner was notable.  The same criterion applies to the George Washington letter. Merely being mentioned by name in the correspondence of a famous person does not make one notable. The whole connection to a secret network seems like some sort of anecdotal story handed down through a family. The man certainly left a historical footprint. One that is larger than Joe the miller’s, but that is to be expected of a successful merchant whose name may appear in business receipts or correspondence. His actions in the public life of his town are few. He helped found the First Presbyterian Church in 1763 and was on its board until 1774. He is mentioned as being on the town commission starting in 1768, but I can’t find a definite answer as to when he left it. He was still on it in 1773 and there is no mention of him at all after 1774 (excluding probate related). He signed the non importation agreement, but as nearly every merchant did either out of patriotism or peer pressure, that alone isn’t particularly notable.  On the eve of the Revolution in 1774 he was appointed to a committee of correspondence but not as one of the more important representatives to Annapolis. Such committees were appearing in towns up and down the colonies. It was patriotic service but again not particularly notable. I don’t want to denigrate the man. He was successful merchant, a faithful servant of his church, did public service in his town and was probably a good family man. I just believe he fails WP:BIO. GcSwRhIc (talk) 23:28, 6 November 2008 (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.