Deletion of Theodore Fields

Comment: County freeholder is not an office that confers an automatic  pass, and the sourcing here is not adequate to demonstrate that he's more notable than the norm for an otherwise non-notable office. One source is not an automatic GNG pass just because it has the word "cyclopedia" in its own name — an entry in the ''Encyclopedia Brittanica'' or a ''national'' dictionary of biographies would certainly count for something, but a ''local'' "encyclopedia" is not automatically enough. The entry would have to be in an encyclopedia that is itself notable and widely recognized enough for us to have an article ''about the encyclopedia'', not just in ''any'' random book that ''calls'' itself an encyclopedia. Every single person who ever held ''any'' office at the municipal or county levels ''anywhere'' could ''always'' be sourced to ''one'' blurb in a purely local directory of local officeholders — so if that were enough for a keep in and of itself, we'd have to keep an article about ''everybody'' who ever served at that level of office
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NPOL)

Comment: The cyclopedia reference is a decent one, but there is insufficient evidence of standalone notability at this point.  and WP:deletion policy#Alternatives to deletion all specify that options to deletion should be considered. There is content here that could be merged and at a minimum redirected to the proposed target.{{pb}}As stated in the header of this (and every other) AfD: '''"When discussing an article, remember to consider alternatives to deletion. If you think the article could be a disambiguation page, redirected or merged to another article, then consider recommending "Disambiguation", "Redirect" or "Merge" instead of deletion. Similarly, if another editor has proposed an alternative to deletion but you think the article should be deleted instead, please elaborate why
Stance: merge
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion (WP:BEFORE)