Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hugh Crawford (sheriff): Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 14:43, 19 February 2015

Hugh Crawford (sheriff)

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

Contested prod, not based on reliable sources. PatGallacher (talk) 19:48, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am not disputing that this person would be notable if the content could be verified, but I don't think it can, the only two sources are not reliable. One is a work from the early 18th century, incredibly dated. The other is the Clan Crawford website, which does not appear to be a reliable source or based on reliable source, it repeats family legends of various verifiability. PatGallacher (talk) 19:59, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What is it about the "dated" work that makes it unreliable? I haven't read it myself, but if the only issue is the age of the source, I don't see why that would make it unreliable, especially since the subject died 400 years before the source was published. Not accepting old sources seems to run against WP:NOTTEMPORARY. 137.43.188.89 (talk) 14:42, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Revision as of 19:59, 18 February 2015 edit PatGallacher (talk \| contribs) Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers 49,323 edits →Hugh Crawford (sheriff) ← Previous edit		Revision as of 14:43, 19 February 2015 edit undo 137.43.188.89 (talk) →Hugh Crawford (sheriff): comment Next edit →
Line 7:		Line 7:

	I am not disputing that this person would be notable if the content could be verified, but I don't think it can, the only two sources are not reliable. One is a work from the early 18th century, incredibly dated. The other is the Clan Crawford website, which does not appear to be a reliable source or based on reliable source, it repeats family legends of various verifiability. [[User:PatGallacher\|PatGallacher]] ([[User talk:PatGallacher\|talk]]) 19:59, 18 February 2015 (UTC)		I am not disputing that this person would be notable if the content could be verified, but I don't think it can, the only two sources are not reliable. One is a work from the early 18th century, incredibly dated. The other is the Clan Crawford website, which does not appear to be a reliable source or based on reliable source, it repeats family legends of various verifiability. [[User:PatGallacher\|PatGallacher]] ([[User talk:PatGallacher\|talk]]) 19:59, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
			:What is it about the "dated" work that makes it unreliable? I haven't read it myself, but if the only issue is the age of the source, I don't see why that would make it unreliable, especially since the subject died 400 years before the source was published. Not accepting old sources seems to run against [[WP:NOTTEMPORARY]]. [[Special:Contributions/137.43.188.89\|137.43.188.89]] ([[User talk:137.43.188.89\|talk]]) 14:42, 19 February 2015 (UTC)