Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thomas Wellbourne

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 speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. 180.172.239.231 (talk) 14:15, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Wellbourne

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

There is no verification that a person named Thomas Wellbourne served in the Virginia House of Burgesses at any time. And certainly this person, who lived from 1640 to 1702, did not serve in 1619. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 02:41, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. lavender|(formerlyHMSSolent|lambast 02:44, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. lavender|(formerlyHMSSolent|lambast 02:44, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The years of service and life definitely can't both be correct but there is a source for someone of this name in the House of Burgesses: [1]. I might be inclined to give the new user a little more time or at least offer to userfy. 24.151.10.165 (talk) 17:13, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The article has been extended with available sources (easier to find when one searches under the subject's properly spelled name: Thomas Wellborn). However, all sources are privately published genealogies, not reliable historical records, so we are still left with a person whose notability is suspect. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 17:36, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

One RS at [2]. A start. 24.151.10.165 (talk) 21:42, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A more reliable genealogy, but still just a genealogy. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 21:56, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If he was in the House of Burgesses, then that would be sufficient evidence of notability. However, I am not sure we are there yet.--Mojo Hand (talk) 22:06, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

House of Burgesses Journal May 3, 1699 : [3]. Note: "Welbourn". 24.151.10.165 (talk) 22:47, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - election to a state legislature is sufficient evidence of notability, and the sources cited by 24.151.10.165 demonstrate his term in office.--Mojo Hand (talk) 03:08, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Withdrawn Since my initial complaint was about the lack of verification of Wellborn's term in office, now that we have that, we can keep the article. Whether we can ever expand on it is questionable, but that's a different issue. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 10:27, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well said. I also note that there was initially a big problem with the dates - the original version of the article suggested he served in the House before he was even born!--Mojo Hand (talk) 13:29, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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.