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 keep. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 03:28, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sir John Wright[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 03:33, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think you should be more careful as you rip through Kbabej (talk · contribs) creations, not just tagging everyone single one due to personal dislikes with generic reasons. More importantly it quite impressive how many sources it has considering the subject lived in the 1500's. May I suggest you take a break from this harmful deletion spree for a bit? I agree with quite a few of them but just don't get all carried away. EoRdE6^{(Come Talk to Me!)} 06:27, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The lecture and "suggestion" from you is truly unnecessary and out of line as well as inappropriate for this forum, EoRdE6. Your assessment of my motives is hardly AGF and is filled with incorrect assumptions bordering on personal attack. But, since you've only been editing barely six months, I can see how someone so new and young enough to be my grandchild would make such an error.

My estimation of the article stands: no notability truly established. Not to mention the article relies almost solely on primary sources. It's a puff piece at best. Being the ancestor of so-and-so, mentioned in a geneology list, and the descendent of another guy doesn't make for notability and falls under WP:INHERITED. What's more, a long list of references is no good if the references are worthless in the scope of making a truly encyclopedic article of a notable individual. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 15:58, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:31, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:31, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Isnt the point of AfD to create possible deletion discussions of questionable articles?. This does not fail WP:GNG.--BabbaQ (talk) 18:15, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm curious, BabbaQ, you've commented on a plethora of AfD discussions today, with about a minute between each. How is it possible you are !Voting 'keep' or 'delete' knowledgeably? With only a minute or so between these comments at different AfDs, it seems impossible for you to have adequately researched the articles in question let alone the references. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 18:53, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - It's not clear at all that this fails WP:GNG. The cited sources, quite ample considering that the subject lived in the sixteenth century, support notability, particularly if Sir John was actually on the "King's Council" (implicitly the Privy Council, though it should be noted that King Henry VIII went through privy councillors as though they were Kleenex. Fiachra10003 (talk) 02:41, 9 March 2015 (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.