Deletion of James Dudley Fooshe

Comment: Self published does NOT automatically mean it isn't a reliable source, according to  because it isn't autobiographical or about a living person.  Also, being held in the Library of Congress doesn't hurt either, so the main criteria is if he could be considered an expert in the field, which multiple books would indicate so.  In this instance, the book would be considered a reliable source.  Also, there are over dozen newspaper articles from the 1930s written by James Dudley Fooshe that are verifiable.  The problem is you need to go to Georgia to verify them as it is a very old newspaper and they don't put articles from the 1930s online.  The fact that verification is hard does NOT mean it can't be verified, particularly with a subject this old:  it is expected.  I understand the arguements, but it is breaking down into "you would have to go to Georgia to verify, so delete it" which is NOT a valid reason to delete the article
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS)

Comment: I have been doing some more homework on this one.  Admittedly, it is very difficult to find independent information on this individual on the web, which doesn't mean he didn't exist or that he is not notable.  "Verifiable" doesn't mean just through internet sources, after all.  I also haven't found the book "Soldier, Planter, Philosopher: The Life of J. D. Fooshe" by Samuel Taylor Geer, although I have found enough evidence about the author from his (few) other books, mainly geneology and related, so book is very plausible.  It seems that most of the books by Samual Taylor Geer are the sort that would be in a limited number of regional libraries.  It is too complex and convoluted to be a hoax, and the more I research, the more I believe the article is true.  "Proving" it, however, would require a trip to Augusta Georgia.  Because of this, I think we have to default to KEEP as it is very likely that the information is correct (all that can be corroborated has been).  If all else fails,  would apply if needed because it is unreasonable to say that 100% of the time, you must be found on Google to be included in Wikipedia.  I would tag the article to show there is a problem checking the references (unless someone wants to drive to Augusta or lives near by...) but I just don't see how we can delete it because "checking the references would be really inconvenient".  Also meets , see article
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Ignore all rules (WP:IAR||WP:N)

Comment: on the edit summary quoted in the nomination. An assertion of notability is enough to prevent a |speedy deletion. A |proposed deletion is for "uncontroversial" deletions, a much broader category. It is enough to remove the tag to dispute it, although if you do not improve the problems that caused the nomination you are pretty much guaranteeing a trip to AFD
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion (WP:CSD||WP:PROD)