Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pomham

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) ─ The Aafī ^{^(talk)} 17:35, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Pomham[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Searches did not turn up enough in-depth coverage to pass WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 02:10, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Sachem where I think we could readily work in the little that's known about this particular Sachem. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:45, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As a sachem, I think they should have presumed notability, the same as a colonial governor of the same period would. Other sachems, such as Madockawando and Uncas, have similar levels of sourcing. Finding great numbers of sources is going to be difficult for leaders of peoples who did not leave behind a written record. --Slugger O'Toole (talk) 13:37, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Also, Onel5969, it appears that Pomham is an alternate spelling. The more common spelling appears to be Pumham, which turns up a great many more sources. Does this influence your opinion at all? -- Slugger O'Toole (talk) 16:04, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Curbon7 (talk) 18:48, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. Curbon7 (talk) 18:48, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Rhode Island-related deletion discussions. Curbon7 (talk) 18:48, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I will always mantain that we cannot hold historical figures to the same notability standards as people living in the internet age, or even the newspaper age. There's reliable mentions in sources like [1] and [2] and in older sources like [3]([4] establishes Pomham and Pumham as the same person). There's a 1918 Rhode Island Historical Society article Pomham and his fort (pp.31-36). The article seems to be in good shape and there's clearly sourcing establishing him as part of the historical record (making offline sourcing in the 300 years since he lived highly likely), which viewed in summation makes GNG arguable and notability clear. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 13:09, 30 August 2021 (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.