Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Devotion Bidwell

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. Wizardman 19:03, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

John Devotion Bidwell[edit]

Article is mainly genealogical and offers very little real substance on the individual in question. It certainly doesn't assert notability. A google search returns just one hit that isn't Wikipedia. Also included is the article for his mother, for the same reason. role^player 20:33, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as it stands. I declined the speedy as this guy looks potentially notable but at the moment there's nothing to say. – iride scent 20:37, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 21:13, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both per WP:NOT. Straight genealogy associated with a historic place. I might consider merging Bidwell to Rev. Adonijah Bidwell House if WP:V could be satisfied. • Gene93k (talk) 21:30, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both: as above. The speedy on this should never have been declined; upon what basis are these people "potentially" notable beyond that they lived in the 19th century? There's no reason to infer anything of the sort. RGTraynor 22:10, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I declined the speedy on an extremely tenuous hope that the "one of the three original selectmen" could be fleshed out into something. While I wholeheartedly agree that as it stands it's deletable, its neither spam, vanity nor an attack page, and I see no harm in leaving it for five days to see if someone can expand it. 18th & 19th century records aren't archived on Google, and we have enough Massachusetts historians that if it's expandable, someone could hopefully expand it. – iride scent 22:16, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Reply: Mmm ... except that WP:POLITICIAN explicitly holds that members of a local council are "likely" to be notable if that council is of a "major metropolitan city." A selectman of a town that's never in its history broken 1200 people is leagues below that. RGTraynor 03:08, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

but he was one of the original 3 selectmen, which puts him in the class of a town founder. This is probably a good deal more notable. We have accepted articles from first settlers of towns. I'm not sure that this one really counts as such to the same extent as early colonial settlements. 04:10, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

* And when such things are written into WP:BIO, that'll be another matter. Right now, it isn't. RGTraynor 15:58, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

it is we here who have the interpretation of interpreting guidelines, and since you seem to agree with m that it should be interpreted that way, say so. Decisions here are how the rules get interpreted at Wikipedia. DGG (talk) 05:06, 16 August 2008 (UTC).[reply]

Keep John Devotion Bidwell, he held an important government position in his hometown. Delete Milliscent Dench, no indication of notability. Edward321 (talk) 14:33, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Important government position"? It's a town of 350 residents! You need to read your WP:POLITICIAN more closely... -- role^player 19:55, 13 August 2008 (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.