Sources
Answers
-
It could be that someone thought the record did not belong to this person. Did the person who removed the record state a reason?
0 -
That 410 error is one we've seen a lot with the problems with the 1900 Census. It's not that someONE removed the source, but that the links to the source record are corrupt.
@N Tychonievich tagging you since you took the lead on the issues with the 1900 census. That 410 error is the same we have been seeing on the corrupted links on the 1900 census. Could you please have the engineers take a look? Thank you, as always.
The profile: https://www.familysearch.org/tree/person/sources/LW3Q-F25
2 -
So I believe the link was broken because the source collection may have been reorganized. I'm not sure it is even indexed any more. Below is a link to the first of 4 images from the marriage file of William and Anna. I have to say quite a bit of information is there. By the way, nothing comes up on searches (same for Ancestry, in case that is relevant), but when I accessed the collection directly (collection being North Dakota, County Marriages : COLLECTION RECORD, 1872-1958) many links came up, not just one. I selected the link for North Dakota, Sargent County, marriage records, 1885-1925 / North Dakota. County Court (Sargent County), I went directly to unindexed images. I had to jump around to the beginning of their marriage file. Their file begins on image 283 and ends on 286
https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/3:1:3Q9M-CS7M-ZS59-B?i=282&cc=2550852&cat=2627427
0 -
Sounds similar to a problem I reported [1] the other day, except that...
(1) In my case, I'm seeing a 404 error, not 401;
(2) In my case, at least some of the sources are IGI records!
[1] https://community.familysearch.org/en/discussion/127633/404-errors-on-several-many-sources
0 -
This usually implies a record has been withdrawn for contractual reasons. I was advised, when raising a similar issue, that IGI records would not necessarily be exempt from the process (of FamilySearch having to take them down) .
1