:: TFD is correct in the assessment. And typically, the links should NOT have been present during the RFC. And I didn't just 'overturn' concensus, but I actually took into consideration the RSN about this which said that trees themselves are not reliable, but the primary documents themselves are useful. This should not be hard concept to grasp, but in the discussion was geared towards 'primary documents' being OK (as under RS and other primary document criteria) and the 'family trees' made by amateurs are not reliable. All of the 'External links' were just a 'family tree', of which did not even cover Richard Tylman himself, but the presumed son and grandson as well. Poetic does not even have assess to the sources that he added, so even if we were to go for the better PRIMARY documents, the problem is that there is clear errors in the forms used and the best one represents a single line entry in a log book, and nothing more. Even the best source we have makes no mention about Richard Tylman being the mayor, and much of the prose here is wrong in its assertions. I'm not 'edit warring' and I haven't gone and addressed the OTHER issues because I don't want to deal with this every day I'm on wiki. And there actually SEEMS to be concensus about the links themselves not being reliable, which logically defaults to not being valid sources. Clemrutter even acknowledges this point as above. One of the 'includes' was a Sockpuppet and is invalid, yet it had no arguement either. The other was on the 'let readers decide if it is authoritive'.  
 :: If you want a proper gauge of the discussion, see the RSN entry as I noted. Its more obvious and detailed. Also the only two people who really made arguments were TFD and Poetic, both were active on the RSN debate as well. The fact three individuals on this RFC (which took place at the same time as the RSN debate) also have expressed concerns about the validity of the sources really defaults to the 3 Removes and 1 Yes (Poetic). A close with no concensus still equals removal. Either way, it doesn't change the result and no one on ANI or in the side discusses has dealt with the issues themselves, instead of the action of the close. Those who have expressed concerns with the sources did so in policy and knew that there really was no way they would have remained valid. Its because they do not pass RS, V and ELNO, not because I'm being a jerk. I could have closed it as 'no concensus' and still removed the things as according to policy. Instead I gave a solid answer on why TFD's argument won out in light of policy. Either way, if I closed as 'no concensus, removing links per policy' the outcome would have been no different to worse. Ironic thing, I don't even know why the previous incarnation of the poet Richard Tylman was deleted. It seems stupid to me and I have half a mind to try and resurrect the page, but Poetic is absent for now and I won't risk further ire by doing so. I'm not a 'bad guy', and I'm really level headed. I just want Wikipedia to be accurate, verifiable and proper. All the drama I can do without.