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 redirect to Archdeacon of Barnstaple. Equivalent to a merger, as all the information from the source article is already at the target location. Sandstein 07:55, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

William Fitsrogo[edit]

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

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

Appears to fail WP:NBIO and WP:GNG. GBooks search produces 5 hits, none of which are significant coverage as far as I can see. This merely verifies that he was Archdeacon of Barnstaple. Google web search returns mostly Wikipedia and its mirrors. Other searches return nothing. !Voters may wish to search for William Fitzrogo as an alternate spelling. Unless the position of archdeacon confers notability (and I don't see why it would), I see no reason to keep this. Quasihuman (talk • contribs) 10:46, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: WP:V does not require that references are readily and immediately verifiable by anyone through the internet. Europe is very rich in history and the institution cited is a very well established university. For people who became notable through modern technology is expected to have great internet accessible verifiability, but I wouldn't expect the same for historical figure from 1300s that maybe notable. WP:GOOGLEHITS go over these points.

But WP:GNG does require that there be multiple sources which cover the topic in significant detail, these are absent here. If you have access to such sources by all means add them. I can only search the resources to which I have access. Quasihuman (talk • contribs) 12:11, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

reply yes, they do, however the credible source, University of London's site includes a citation to non-electronic resource including page number. Consulting that resource may provide additional answer. Lack of accessibility online is not a reason for deletion. Internet accessibility is not a requirement as stated in overview section in WP:RS Cantaloupe2 (talk) 13:52, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am not claiming that lack of sources available online equates to non-notability, I am claiming that I have performed WP:BEFORE to a level that would be expected of someone living in a different country than the subject. Quasihuman (talk • contribs) 18:32, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Archdeacon for a year? Not notable, as far as I'm concerned. Mangoe (talk) 13:28, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Archdeacon of Barnstaple which contains as much information as there is on William Fitsrogo. British History Online cites Bishop Stapleton's register, p188, and while it's nice to assume this is a prolix and colourful biography of Fitsrogo, it's better to actually look up the reference, which is easily done online[1]. This source is clearly not sufficient for notability, with no information beyond date of office (note there's a discrepancy between Old Style and New Style dates). How many reliable sources will there be about someone who was in office in the early 15th century (decades before printing began in England), and who held a fairly minor office for a matter of months? At best, a name in a register here and there. If information miraculously appears, the article can be recreated, but right now there's no evidence of notability. --Colapeninsula (talk) 16:30, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have had three similar articles proposed recently so...... please read these Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John_Plemth Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thomas Tuttebury Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thomas de Bodham to see if it helps whether we should have a mass deletion of similar articles I think now would be the time to decide this once and for all Bashereyre (talk) 16:52, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:24, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:24, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 13:39, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Archdeacon of Barnstaple, which is essentuially a list article. At this remote period it is unlikely that we will ever get significant information on archdeacons. I would suggest that that article should be restructured to allow a short paragraph on each individual, for whom there is insufficient information for even a brief article. Here we have no more than a name and dates. At one stage there was a redliunk for every peer and baronet, but the NN ones have now gnerally been delinked. I would suggest that the same should apply to ecclesiastical functionaries. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:10, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Archdeacon article – this man is clearly not notable. In future, I would like to see the less notable ADs bio'd in fuller Archdeacon of X articles – I've just not had time to go about it myself :( D B D 07:21, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Can I suggest that someone expert like DBD goes through the templates removing the [[]] from the non notable ones, as anything in red suggests an article should be created? These repeated deletion requests/removals (4 I know of; plus others speedily deleted) clearly indicate a feeling that these are not necessary. This is the first debate not to have someone suggesting an archdeacon is of sufficient rank by office to merit an article regardless of the lack of facts; or, if these are available, merely indicate he discharged his office competently.Bashereyre (talk) 16:20, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Would that I had the time, Bash! There must be more "experts" than you and me. I'd like to point out that my redlinking articles is not to suggest that they ought to exist, but rather where they ought to be if they were created (i.e. ensuring consistency internally and with naming guidelines; in fact they often serve as a reminder to myself when those articles are created elsewhere...) D B D 11:29, 23 October 2012 (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.