Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hugh Crawford (sheriff)

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) –Davey2010^Talk 02:33, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

]

Keep - There is plenty of source material to write a fully verified stub, for example, [1], [2],[3]. I see no reason why these might not be reliable, despite some of them being quite old. (note: Hugh Crawfurd is an alternate spelling) 137.43.188.89 (talk) 15:55, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I'm sold. How is a work considered unreliable just because it's from the 18th century? Given all the crap that comes out in today's tabloid press, 24-hour news cycle and the blogosphere, I'd be more inclined to trust older sources. Nha Trang ^Allons! 18:27, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:05, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:05, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:05, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the others. We've no reason to doubt the veracity of Crawfurd as a historian and genealogist. Pax 04:29, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Knight and sheriff. The date of a work does not invalidate it as a source. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:09, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The three additional sources should be incorproated into the article. He clearly meets notability guidelines.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:02, 23 February 2015 (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.