Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Old Tom (medicine man)


 * 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. There's a clear consensus here to not keep this as a stand-alone article. Normally, I would be willing to stretch things to go with the suggested merge, with a nod to WP:ATD. But from some of the comments here, this is more of a WP:V issue than it is WP:N, and WP:V really is a bright line requirement, so I'm going with the straight delete.

It's possible a new article (or a new section of L. Ron Hubbard) could be written on this topic, but it would need better sourcing, and possibly a change in slant as proposed by User:Icewhiz. If somebody wants to try doing that, my suggestion (and it's only a suggestion) would be to write it in draft space and ping the participants in this AfD for their input. -- RoySmith (talk) 23:39, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

Old Tom (medicine man)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

There is no historical significance to this article and it is questionable if this individual ever existed. Calvinwhitehurst (talk) 07:21, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Montana-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 11:26, 24 July 2017 (UTC)


 * delete I don't know how significant a fellow that L. Ron supposedly was supposedly associated with would be, but the rest of it is a bunch of original research trying to tie three possibly different people together without warrant. Mangoe (talk) 15:56, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:20, 30 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Neutral - would support retaining if this was re-cast as a (perhaps mythical) Scientology figure - as such this figure seems notable. As written - with possible associations, scant sourcing, and lack of focus on the Scientology aspect - not.Icewhiz (talk) 06:28, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete, unless much improved. Unless he was an extremely important in the establishment of Scientology, I would suggest that the subject was NN. It would seem not to be clear in Hubbard's influence and the man in the photo are the same.  If he was so important, I would have expected the article to say more of how he influenced Hubbard.  Aperson he merely met would certainly be NN.  Peterkingiron (talk) 18:40, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Merge to L. Ron Hubbard. That appears to be the primary reason this individual is currently considered notable.  There is no indication that the individual photographed is the same individual Hubbard claimed to have met.  If more info develops, the history is preserved and the bluelink can be made back into an article.  For now, though, it's a content fork.  Montanabw (talk) 20:41, 30 July 2017 (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.