Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Leonard Marbury

This deletion proposal was closed as speedy keep. However Doug Weller, a sysop who is heavily involved in censoring mention of anything to do with certain bona fide Cherokee Native legends, soon thereafter decided to use his admin toolbox to summarily delete the article anyway before it could be expanded, and also block the creator on his unproven assumption that it was created by a sockpuppet. There needs to be some review of these actions. We are not supposed to be at the mercy of the whims of a single individual. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 12:21, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
 * It was an obvious sock of User:Paul Bedson - obvious even without his post at this AfD. A slam-dunk if you know Bedson's edits and sock. And you and I simply disagree about whether the story about the Moon-eyed people is actually a legend or originated in a 1797 account reported in about 2 sentences by this author find another source that is clearly reliable and shows where in Cherokee legend/folklore this can be found and I'll probably agree it's genuine. I told the Admin who closed this AfD and he's happy with it. Deleting articles created by socks is routine. Dougweller (talk) 18:53, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

If I may - the article was very short and had only one source; the issue of notability was not really examined at the AfD. Til Eulenspiegel, can you find further sources to demonstrate notability? If so, I'd be willing to userfy it for you, or maybe Dougweller would. If he was notable, it would save the hassle of recreating it from scratch now that we're aware of the topic. Yngvadottir (talk) 21:26, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I know hardly anything about him, but using the search tools at the top of the AfD page just now, as suggested by one of the respondents, turned up some interesting sources saying he was born in Maryland, moved to Georgia in the early 1770s, was a delegate in the "extralegal" Georgia Provincial Congress, became commander of dragoon cavalry troops in Georgia in 1776, as such was involved in action in 1776, 1777, and at Savannah in 1778, then after the war was a state representative in Georgia, was prominent in the early history of the State of Georgia, had Marbury Creek in Georgia named after him, was father of Secretary of State Horatio Marbury, became acting Spanish consul for Georgia and Spanish Florida by 1790, and ended up in New Orleans, then Spanish territory. But I don't know if that's notable enough for wikipedia standards. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 22:17, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I also noticed similar book sources, but admit that I did not read them in as much depth as Til Eulenspiegel, though I formed the similar impression that he was a notable figure in the Revolutionary War era in the deep South. If he was a Georgia state legislator, then he clearly meets the notability guideline WP:POLITICIAN.  Cullen 328  Let's discuss it  00:41, 29 April 2013 (UTC)


 * OK, does either of you want it restored in userspace, such as it is? (Nothing to prevent team editing there of course.) Not a field I'm particularly into, but more importantly I have a couple of requests already on hold that will keep me busy for the next couple of days, and this really needs to be filled out a lot. I'm at work right now taking a not entirely licit break, so will drop a line to Dougweller too. If not, no worries, I'll look at it myself next week. Yngvadottir (talk) 16:42, 29 April 2013 (UTC)


 * I think I should also point out that Til is not telling the truth in accusing me of censorship (a mild accusation compared to others he's made against me). We have a dispute over whether the "moon-eyed" people can be called a legend by Wikipedia and about sources (as Til knows, I don't think fringe sources, state park signs, and sources that don't have the word legend or something similar are sources for us calling something a legend). There was virtually nothing to it when it was stubbed. The source was  which was used for calling him a Colonel, which the source does, for saying he lived near the Appalachian mountains, which the source doesn't say, and it also said that he saw moon-eyed people, which the source clearly doesn't say and Bushranger correctly removed. This sort of misuse of sources is one of the main reasons Bedson was blocked. It was also in 4 categories, American military personnel which is fine, American folklore - and neither Til nor I are calling this folklore and his brief report doesn't suggest it was folklore, medieval legends which is a bit odd, and Pre-Columbian trans-oceanic contact which is also wrong - Barton seems to suggest they may be Albino but not that they are from Europe, etc. So, that's it. Dougweller (talk) 17:48, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
 * It seems to me she is not asking us about the folklore or any other drama, but whether Col. Marbury's military and political career justifies an article. My answer is, I would say it would justify one at some point, but I have not researched it in any great depth and I am not that pressed about it.  One can easily imagine that in the future he will have an article. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 18:12, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
 * OK thanks, Dougweller, that is a good summary of what was in the article; I'll put it on my list for if neither of you and no one else creates a new one, and the deleted version doesn't now need to be undeleted. (I'd always rather we had an article on a notable topic, but I am not always the best person to do so. For example, anyone have the specialized knowledge to improve Vagindra script?) Yngvadottir (talk) 18:47, 29 April 2013 (UTC)