Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/William Carpenter, Providence Rhode Island


 * 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. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:32, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

William Carpenter, Providence Rhode Island

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

I was on the fence about this one, but this doesn't really seem to assert notability. It's been maintenance tagged to the point that the tags nearly outweigh the article. I've tried discussing with the page's creator, who is either unwilling to add secondary sources (all sources are from a personal website) or simply doesn't know how. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 15:18, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Note. Editor has stopped using personal site for information.--Loodog (talk) 15:58, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Maintenance tags would suggest the article needs a vigorous rewriting and editing. While a minor figure in Rhode Island colonial history, his notability is verified and the article meets WP:RS standards. Pastor Theo (talk) 23:02, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I also moved the article to William Carpenter (Rhode Island). Pastor Theo (talk) 23:37, 5 April 2009 (UTC)


 * This article is unreadable and of no interest outside a tiny circle of wouldbe genealogist types. Delete! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iwanafish (talk • contribs) 04:07, 6 April 2009


 * Keep Notability is not temporary, you could probably find a lot of historical coverage of this person, as he seems to be an important historical figure. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Riffic (talk • contribs) 04:50, 6 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep Plenty of cites (too many), appears notable.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:35, 6 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep but please trim it down. Editor no longer cites personal website for sources and has documented person. All this stuff about public offices, family, etc... needs to go.  Wikipedia is not a repository of information.  Please keep only what is interesting and accessible to the mainstream.--Loodog (talk) 15:58, 6 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep this is a work in process, why AfD? unwilling to add secondary sources? WP:BITE, anyone? pohick (talk) 13:19, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep per its assertions of notability in nearley every sentence. Certainly the article requires cleanup, but historical figures rarely need deletion... now do they? Its a terrific work-in-progress.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 17:58, 7 April 2009 (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.