- 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. Sandstein 09:11, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
Thomas H. Fitnam
- Thomas H. Fitnam ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Finishing nomination by IP 2600:1700:7822:6190:98AD:B7CE:DD3C:B031, whose rationale is detailed here. ansh 666 01:14, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
- Weak keep per the claim (for which I can't immediately see a supporting reference, hence my qualifier) of being one of the first such clerks. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 03:16, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 05:10, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 05:11, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 05:02, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 05:02, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
- Keep: same rationale as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Frederick Emmons Chapin. — cnzx ( talk)
- Keep: Sufficient sourcing and early historical figure. Patapsco913 ( talk) 17:24, 25 November 2017 (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.