Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sir Edward Threston

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 delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 02:49, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sir Edward Threston[edit]

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

No claim to notability. No reliable sources. Largely sourced to a self-published book that came out a few months ago, with the premise of proving that the Threston's are part of the rightful nobility of England. No indication of any claim to notability for articles subject. John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:30, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep The subject was a knight and therefore passes notability per WP:ANYBIO. Fiachra10003 (talk) 19:39, 31 July 2014 (UTC) *Delete. The only references that actually seems real and relevant is the 2014 document which appears to be self-published. Fiachra10003 (talk) 14:14, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - unless some genuine reliable sources, rather than a self-published family genealogy, can be found to support the assertions in this article. Every line of this is related to the Threston glorification agenda of a couple of editors. --Orange Mike | Talk 20:01, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm not sure that WP:ANYBIO is so broad as to encompass every member of the Knights Templar. Membership in the Knights Templar was not a reward of honor (as modern knighthoods), but rather a reward for the wealth required to join. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 20:06, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete ~~as no evidence of notability~~. All created by a sock who prefers promoting non notable people –Davey2010 • (talk) ~~21:53, 31 July 2014 (UTC)~~ 13:39, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No evidence of notability. In 13th century England, knighthood was not a significant honour. Maproom (talk) 22:35, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Looks like part of the ongoing attempt to add the Threston family tree to Wikipedia. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:51, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:09, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:09, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:09, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Whilst I heartily endorse keeping someone who's been knighted in the modern era under WP:ANYBIO, since knighthood is awarded for achievement, I really don't think we can extend that to medieval knights, who were usually knighted as teenagers because their father was also a knight and not for any especial distinction. Essentially, they were equivalent to baronets (hereditary knights) today; the first to receive the honour is inherently notable, but his successors aren't. Threston wouldn't have been knighted because he was a Knight Templar, as the article says; he would have become a Knight Templar because he was knighted (lesser individuals joined the order as brother sergeants). There's no evidence he was especially notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:57, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No RS, no notability.--180.172.239.231 (talk) 12:45, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Obvious candidate for deletion. Per nom. and above. --Jersey92 (talk) 16:37, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete all: After the recent update of LagondaDK on his Talk page I suggest ALL of the "articles" listed on Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/AustralianThreston as part of the sockpuppet network should be speedy-deleted. I think, this is proof enough, that there is not a single one, which is NOT a hoax or at least provide fake information.--Susumu (talk) 22:13, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree with Susuma that the SPI and the number of socks that this editor were using should be speedied. MarnetteD|Talk 00:28, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The main source, this book, could politely be described as dodgy. Self-published (CreateSpace), commissioned by the central figure of this whole Threston/Zoransky walled garden, its attempt to show that the Threston family are "of nobility class" rests on finding this man in a list of Knights Templar. There is then a lot of fluff about how his title would have been passed on to his family and descendants, citing passages from the website of one of the modern "Knights Templar" organizations, which have absolutely no connection with the medieval one. See Knights Templar and popular culture#Modern organizations:

"There is no clear historical connection between the Knights Templar, which were dismantled in the 14th century, and any of these other organizations, of which the earliest emerged publicly in the 18th century. However, there is often public confusion and many overlook the 400-year gap. It is also worth pointing out that medieval Templars were members of a monastic order and most were required to take vows of celibacy and avoid all contact with women, even members of their own family. Therefore it was not possible, in most cases, for Templars to have any descendants."

The extract shown in the McHugh/Lynn book simply shows the name "Edward Threston" as one in a list. Without seeing the head of the list, there is no way to know whether it is a list of knights, or simply of members of the Order, only about a tenth of whom were knights. In fact, the name two below in the list is "Richard Crooke, Esqr." which does not sound like a knight.

Even if we assume that this is a list of knights, his presence in it is absolutely the only thing we know about Edward Threston, and that is not enough to justify an article. JohnCD (talk) 13:07, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- He might be a remote uncle of the contributor, but his appearance in a couple of edited volumes of historical documents is miles from making him notable. Whether properly called "Sir" is beyond me, as I am not sure what the Templars were referred to. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:48, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:MILL. Bearian (talk) 19:49, 5 August 2014 (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.