Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thomas Powell (1665–1731)


 * 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.  Sandstein  05:26, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Thomas Powell (1665–1731)

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

A bit of an odd situation here. This article was originally created with an incorrect attribution of notability that actually pertained to the topic's father, not to him, so it was recently moved to the title applicable to the father, following which the resulting redirect was speedy deleted as being unhelpful and irrelevant to the actual topic. Subsequently, the article was restored by another administrator on the grounds that since historical records specifically about the son do exist and the original article wasn't "recently created", it isn't eligible for speedy deletion — however, the sources in question are purely genealogical in nature, and don't even make a claim that he has any actual notability in his own right for anything whatsoever. Additionally, it's the age of the redirect (less than one week at time of deletion), not the age of the incorrect original article, that determines whether a redirect qualifies for speedy deletion or not. Accordingly, I'm taking it to AFD rather than getting into an edit war with another administrator over speedyability — but since there isn't even a claim of notability here, it's still a pretty unequivocal delete either way. Bearcat (talk) 17:49, 5 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Support deletion - owning a house & land received from one's father & having a will does not establish notability--JimWae (talk) 18:56, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Either delete as a first choice as a non-notable individual, or as a second choice redirect to Thomas Powell (1641–1722), where this subject is mentioned on his father's page. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 19:13, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Given that he's not notable for anything in his own right, and therefore highly unlikely to ever be an actual search term that anybody's actually looking for, I don't see how redirecting it adds any encyclopedic value. Bearcat (talk) 21:07, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete. Subject doesn't meet notability guidelines as per the above. INeverCry   22:33, 5 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Redirect as the reasonable solution. Since the subject is  mentioned, a cross-reference is appropriate   DGG ( talk ) 22:49, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 00:52, 6 May 2012 (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.