Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thomas Hastings (colonist)


 * 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.  kur  ykh   00:28, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Thomas Hastings (colonist)

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

This person's only claim to notability appears to be that he was an American colonist. While there are plenty of sources it does not seem to me that settling in North America is sufficient distinction to justify an article. Mangoe (talk) 16:08, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
 * (from the author) The Great Migration colonists were mostly of the same generation as those that came over on the Mayflower and comparable also in leadership terms of their own colony. Plymouth Colony was disinct at the time from the Massachusetts Bay Colony.  From a macro perspective, the GM colonists to New England and their progeny have had a huge and important impact on the United States.  Many of our greatest leaders (and a relatively few rogues) from the Northeast, the Midwest and West can trace their ancestry to one or more of these Puritan / Protestants who arrived between 1629 and 1640.  As for Thomas himself, Watertown was a very important town in the 17th century and for some five decades he was one of its leading citizens and served in the MBC legislature (aka General Court).  Finally, there are precedents for bios such as this; for instance, his contemporary and friend, Edmund Rice (1638).  User:SBmeier  —Preceding undated comment added 19:24, 20 January 2010 (UTC).
 * Keep Appears to have been notable at the time, article is suitably sourced. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:58, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Notable for what? Mangoe (talk) 17:23, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Article claims he held just about every available public office. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:35, 20 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep No reason to remove it, page is well sourced and "Thomas Hastings" seems to have many decendants http://www.thomashastings.org/ and his own site dedicated to him. —Preceding unsigned comment added by OfNoInterest (talk • contribs) 17:06, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep although I am not sure all the sources actually do mention this person directly. In-line citations would be better. Alone he might not be that notable, the article might qualify as a "list class" for all the descendants. There seem to be several "list of youtube commedians from East Podunk" etc. that are less encyclopedic. Needs a biobox. Also get rid of the peackock words from the prose.W Nowicki (talk) 19:13, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:50, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:50, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete Being one of 20,000 migrants is not very impressive evidence of notability. The first source, from 1866 appears to be a privately printed genealogy which makes questionable assertions of "noble birth" as was common in vanity genealogies of the time. Notability is not inherited, nor does it percolate back to ancestors of notable persons. The article reads like speculation based on directory entries, and appears to fail WP:BIO. Ancestry.com is thataway and welcomes such ancestral prose. Edison (talk) 23:26, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Sounds like he was notable as politician in the 17th century and it's sourced Vartanza (talk) 12:32, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep "Deputy for Watertown to the General Court of Massachusetts " is a member of the provincial legislature. Fully sufficient for notability.   DGG ( talk ) 21:54, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep, sources indicate notability. Everyking (talk) 08:08, 27 January 2010 (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.