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. Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 22:21, 30 November 2019 (UTC) reply

Enos Foord (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)

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

No evidence of notability--minor county officeholder, and two centuries too late to be notable as an early settler . WP is not the US Census DGG ( talk ) 18:45, 23 November 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 18:47, 23 November 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 18:47, 23 November 2019 (UTC) reply

• Keep. I dispute the characterization of him a as "minor" officeholder. Additionally, several of the sources (Kolodny, for example) have longer discussions of him that go well beyond trivial mentions. I chose not to include many of them in an effort to get a stub up, but in light of this AFD nomination will. -- Slugger O'Toole ( talk) 19:24, 23 November 2019 (UTC) reply
• Delete - As per WP:42 significant coverage in reliable source is required to establish notability hence I’m upholding DGG’s rationale for nomination. Celestina007 ( talk) 21:26, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
• Delete: Registrar of deeds is indeed a minor office with no inherent importance. Even if coverage is available, importance (and thus notability) is lacking. Pi.1415926535 ( talk) 20:40, 23 November 2019 (UTC) reply
• Delete: If the Kolodny cite is the shining example of indepth discussion here, this is a slam dunk for deletion; it consists of less than a full paragraph, half of which is entirely speculative on the part of the author, and which I'd consider an unreliable reference -- it states "it is likely Lydia's family learned about the normal school movement through her Uncle Enos' connections with Horace Mann," before going on to state that Mann and the subject were both justices of the peace in Dedham in 1829. As may be, but being justices of the peace at the same time does not presuppose they worked together, and 1829 is nearly a decade before Mann began his educational reforms. Every other citation is indeed a trivial mention, except for a publication of the town's historical society, which lists the subject's CV. This does not constitute significant coverage, even if New England county registrars weren't minor posts usually held as sinecures by aging pols (which they are). Ravenswing 01:21, 24 November 2019 (UTC) reply
• Delete. "Registrar of deeds" is not an inherently notable office, and the depth of sourcing is not solid enough to get him over WP:GNG in lieu — a strong majority of the sources here are primary, not notability-making or reliable, and the most substantive source on offer features less than a paragraph's worth of content about him strictly in the context of his affiliations with other people than in the context of him having done anything noteworthy in his own right. GNG is not just "count the footnotes and keep anything that meets or exceeds two"; it also tests for the depth of how substantively any source is or isn't about the subject, the geographic range of how widely the subject is getting covered, and the context of what the person is getting covered for, so a person is not automatically notable enough for a Wikipedia article just because his name happens to appear on one page of a local history book. Bearcat ( talk) 03:05, 25 November 2019 (UTC) reply
• Delete per nom. Very important to note that this AFD is related to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/James Foord. ミラ P 04:05, 25 November 2019 (UTC) reply
• Delete. The office holds no inherent notability. The sources are very minor, extremely localized coverage.-- Kbabej ( talk) 04:23, 25 November 2019 (UTC) reply
• Delete. Non notable office to pass WP:NPOL nor the sourcing is good enough to pass WP:GNG. Snow delete. CASSIOPEIA^{( talk)} 10:23, 25 November 2019 (UTC) reply
• Delete it your highest rank was register of deeds you are default non-notable. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 19:30, 25 November 2019 (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.